Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting --- incorrect either way
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:11:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <v6osn2$2fuva$13@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>
 <v6o140$2bop2$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 17:11:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cb7a71f238b6f1f0fff1b8b0208457d0";
	logging-data="2620394"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/uYe8HJlhv/yHF6ttsBdlG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AZVntJ0/uxF6IKvbFZknpRlzCrU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6o140$2bop2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3112

On 7/11/2024 2:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:58 schreef olcott:
>> 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 not what I said.

What you said logically entails that a correct simulation
of 1 step counts as a correct simulation of 0 steps.

> What I said is that if a program needs two steps for a simulation, it is 
> incorrect to simulate only one step and then abort and report it will 
> never halt.
> English seems to be a difficult language for you.

I am talking about the correct simulation of N steps and you
are trying to get away with saying there is no such thing
as the correct simulation of N steps. That is either terribly
confused or dishonest, yet incorrect either way.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer