Article <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:28:39 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me> <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me> <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de> <v6mlk6$21d9q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:28:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d915db998623bee0999786efb2838ac1";
	logging-data="2472761"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197qF1OFOCm5b6tEhGwBK3P"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SJFQFMC8/X9YdoFUuLpB2Ztx/a4=
Bytes: 2220

On 2024-07-10 18:58:14 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/10/2024 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> OK, thanks!
>> 
> 
> In other words he is saying that when you do
> 1 step correctly you did 0 steps correctly.

That is possible as "correctly" has different meaning when talking
about steps from when talking about simulations.

-- 
Mikko