Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:13:22 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <101a7uv$3vfam$5@dont-email.me> <101br7m$db03$1@dont-email.me> <101cjk7$hfof$7@dont-email.me> <101hdjt$21ui2$1@dont-email.me> <101iheg$2h3fr$1@dont-email.me> <1e5e5837ae9e60daa16e5fef3693ff424c1049d2@i2pn2.org> <101j60c$2urhr$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:21:22 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2951518"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <101j60c$2urhr$3@dont-email.me> Bytes: 4033 Lines: 76 On 6/1/25 11:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/1/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/1/25 5:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/1/2025 6:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-05-30 15:41:59 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 5/30/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-05-29 18:10:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/29/2025 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 🧠 Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the classical framework of computation theory (Turing machines), >>>>>>>> simulation is not equivalent to execution, though they can >>>>>>>> approximate one >>>>>>>> another. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge a simulated input >>>>>>> always has the exact same behavior as the directly >>>>>>> executed input unless this simulated input calls >>>>>>> its own simulator. >>>>>> >>>>>> The simulation of the behaviour should be equivalent to the real >>>>>> behaviour. >>>>> >>>>> That is the same as saying a function with infinite >>>>> recursion must have the same behavior as a function >>>>> without infinite recursion. >>>> >>>> A function does not have a behaviour. A function has a value for >>>> every argument in its domain. >>>> >>>> A function is not recursive. A definition of a function can be >>>> recursive. There may be another way to define the same function >>>> without recursion. >>>> >>>> A definition of a function may use infinite recursion if it is also >>>> defined how that infinite recursion defines a value. >>>> >>>> Anyway, from the meaning of "simulation" follows that a simulation >>>> of a behaviour is (at least in some sense) similar to the real >>>> behaviour. Otherwise no simulation has happened. >>>> >>> >>> void DDD() >>> { >>>    HHH(DDD); >>>    return; >>> } >>> >>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its >>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state* >>> >>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words* >>> >> >> No it doesn't, as HHH is defined to abort and simulation after finite >> time, and thus only does finite simulation. >> > > See right there you changed the words. > I said nothing about finite or infinite simulation. > You said that I am wrong about something that I didn't even say. > But you mean infinitly recursive, or you have no evidence of non-halting. Or, are you admitting that your "recursive simulation" isn't actually proof of non-halting. After all, if program x called a function simulate4, which simulates up to 4 instructions and returns whether it reached a final state, would you call that "recursive simulation" and proof of non-haltling behavior? I guess you are just showing that you world is built on lies and errors.