Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vgt2iu$10iv5$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating termination analyzers are supposed to work Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:58:54 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 31 Message-ID: <vgt2iu$10iv5$2@dont-email.me> References: <vgr1gs$hc36$1@dont-email.me> <vgsjie$u0to$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:58:55 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="caa393ed49c937630dd8ea795c5bbe8f"; logging-data="1068005"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kukfoRkNpF1ZpoJH8s0ht" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:rApN+8NuwlVil7SZCG8kmfwKHlo= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <vgsjie$u0to$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241111-0, 11/10/2024), Outbound message Bytes: 2378 On 11/11/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-11-10 19:28:28 +0000, olcott said: > >> *The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks* >> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >> stop running unless aborted then >> >> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> >> Correct simulation is defined as D is emulated by H according to >> the semantics of the x86 language thus includes H emulating itself >> emulating D. > > No, that definition does not apply to Sipser's words. There a "correct > simulation" measn a simulation that Sipser regards as correct, which > probably is the same as what "coreect simulation" means in Common > Language. > How could disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language possibly be correct? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer