Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:55:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de>
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>
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:55:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="11643"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.0-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
Bytes: 1706
Lines: 26

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!

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).