Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:15:12 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:15:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="329af3d797696bf444d9a1dc8986292a"; logging-data="995681"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/OxkXPrv7WeHL8lrTk6IWw" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:KkGzJ1R2SGP/KfI7OLg1lrWY2OM= Bytes: 2217 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 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. -- Mikko