Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!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.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:25:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <v6rat7$30qtt$8@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>
 <v6qoms$2ukg7$1@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 15:26:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a53340e46817c86b736359d5ee28d54a";
	logging-data="3173309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vjObq1wQOeh32KYWvlYse"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/p8pWUIjFR6dbKAN1wtFn5Ei/+A=
In-Reply-To: <v6qoms$2ukg7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3335

On 7/12/2024 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Fred was trying to get away with saying that when 1
step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH that 0 steps
were emulated correctly.

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