| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8bsss$184u7$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:27:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 50 Message-ID: <v8bsss$184u7$2@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$1@dont-email.me> <v88hii$i7kl$8@dont-email.me> <v8a3u0$ucb1$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:27:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6c56e3cc0e766a5f243fbbf3db0d44a"; logging-data="1315783"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jkghaRMWkcEP+Dgd9y6tA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:OImhqafzooCpE0kFjJ9RTz7SCqw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v8a3u0$ucb1$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 3094 On 7/30/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-07-29 16:55:46 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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. > > That's correct. But you have used the word anyway. > It seems that either you have ADD or are becoming a liar. When we combine these conventional notions (a) UTM (b) halt decider (c) Turing Machine description into a simulating halt decider that bases it halt status decision on the behavior of its simulated TMD The the SHD can abort the simulation of its TMD. The only reason that I suspect that you have become a liar or have ADD is that I already completely explained all this before and you act like I never said it. before -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer