Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:17:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <vfs1ff$2ci0$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqt7a$1jg6i$3@dont-email.me> <vfqucl$3v4c4$13@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqvkd$1k5er$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 01:17:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="78400"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfqvkd$1k5er$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3156
Lines: 43

On 10/29/24 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2024 10:18 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 29 Oct 2024 09:58:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/29/2024 9:50 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>> On 29/10/2024 13:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>> To the best of my knowledge no one besides me ever came up with the
>>>>> idea of making a simulating halt decider / emulating termination
>>>>> analyzer.
>>>>       The /idea/ is ancient, and certainly dates back at least to
>>>>       the
>>>> 1970s.  For a relatively informal discussion, see paragraph 3 of
>>>>     http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
>>>>
>>> The word "simulate" or "UTM" or "interpret" was not there.
>>> Let me know what keyword to search for I have to prepare my house for my
>>> cancer treatment.
>> The key word is "see". Oh wait, that's "emulate", which you haven't
>> explained the relevant difference from simulation of. Please keep
>> us posted about your health.
>>
> 
> The good news about my health is that I will probably
> not be dead very soon.
> 
> An x86 emulation has a 100% perfectly exact standard
> such that anyone disagreeing is unequivocally wrong.
> A simulation is much more vague.

Right, assuming it is a COMPLETE x86 emulation, which HHH doesn't do.

What do you consider the difference between "emulation" and "simulation"?

> 
>>>> intended for second-year undergraduates and present on the web from
>>>> 1996 [though then as a Nottingham University web page].  I certainly
>>>> didn't invent the idea.  The same page includes some stuff about Busy
>>>> Beavers.
>>>> You, and perhaps others, may also find some of the surrounding pages
>>>> [linked from that one] interesting, eg the stuff about UTMs and about
>>>> minimal computers.  Again, I am not claiming credit for inventing any
>>>> of this.
> 
>