Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v88hii$i7kl$8@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:55:46 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 37 Message-ID: <v88hii$i7kl$8@dont-email.me> References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me> <v82bi4$39v6n$4@dont-email.me> <v82tr5$3dftr$2@dont-email.me> <v82vtl$3dq41$2@dont-email.me> <v830hg$3dftr$9@dont-email.me> <v83des$2nhr$1@news.muc.de> <v851tm$3sbia$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:55:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d358cc663705f17d44fb4afa23cd753"; logging-data="597653"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181nAacKVVrgEh8zzDwNqa6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:plt+GH9jqBbljutsfkDGP2jQcgg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v851tm$3sbia$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 2600 On 7/28/2024 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-07-27 18:14:52 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said: > >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Stopping running is not the same as halting. >>> DDD emulated by HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted. >>> This is not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating >>> normally (AKA halting). > >> I think you're wrong, here. All your C programs are a stand in for >> turing machines. A turing machine is either running or halted. There is >> no third state "aborted". An aborted C program certainly doesn't >> correspond with a running turing machine - so it must be a halted turing >> machine. > >> So aborted programs are halted programs. If you disagree, perhaps you >> could point out where in my arguments above I'm wrong. > > May I disagree? An "aborted" Turing machine is a runnung Turing machine. A Turing machine has no notion of being aborted. When a simulating partial halt decider is comprised of the notions of a: (a) UTM (b) decider (c) Turing machine description Then it is easy to see that any UTM that simulates less than all of the steps of a TM Description has aborted this simulation. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer