Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:24:49 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:24:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed324ae554c0f53fe92fe56911420f63";
	logging-data="2126424"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oCqu0FdApOJecCBzXR27c"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:16roB0+FfKjvk+XgZRhqkWNfDWI=
In-Reply-To: <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 1863

Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:12 schreef Alan Mackenzie:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
> 
> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>> Proving that the simulation is incorrect. Because a correct simulation
>> would not abort a halting program halfway its simulation.
> 
> Just for clarity, a correct simulation wouldn't abort a non-halting
> program either, would it?  Or have I misunderstood this correctness?
> 
> [ .... ]
> 

A non-halting program cannot be simulated correctly in a finite time. 
So, it depends whether we can call it a correct simulation, when it does 
not abort. But, for some meaning of 'correct', indeed, a simulator 
should not abort a non-halting program either.