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: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:15:24 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v6qoms$2ukg7$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> <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me> <v6op7v$2fuva$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:15:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="807c282dc99f45cb4bf1613b1d698492";
	logging-data="3101191"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NIbR2aRoPU1/ve93c7EXH"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GAZlcbJOI7t0mLwqy77nA5AmOpM=
Bytes: 2781

On 2024-07-11 14:12:15 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/11/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> *No that is always false*
> When you did one anythings correctly then you did
> more than zero anythings correctly.

If I only correcly do one thing that is not a part of my routine then
I don't do my routine correctly. If I do correctly every part of my routine
but do them in a wrong order I don't do my routine correctly.

-- 
Mikko