Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 11:19:41 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 127 Message-ID: <102e2it$2isuj$1@dont-email.me> 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> <101jhvm$33lln$1@dont-email.me> <101kfl3$3bfvj$4@dont-email.me> <101m9ps$3srp4$1@dont-email.me> <101nltk$7qau$10@dont-email.me> <101osq3$mlio$1@dont-email.me> <101ps65$ta6v$8@dont-email.me> <102388o$3m38c$1@dont-email.me> <10238ui$3m1s3$2@dont-email.me> <1028mke$1405v$1@dont-email.me> <1029p1p$1ah2f$13@dont-email.me> <102bgv4$1st4o$1@dont-email.me> <102c3jp$20jl4$9@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 10:19:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="895999819a5c78832fa7d733efdcd182"; logging-data="2716627"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19FYxrQE/Q5Ol5962rkTxGs" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:1m3hUFHZIdN0nKMaV9aQ8CZf6FQ= On 2025-06-11 14:24:57 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/11/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-10 17:12:24 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/10/2025 2:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-08 06:00:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/8/2025 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-06-04 16:27:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 20:28:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-02 15:23:15 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 1:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-01 21:41:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter whether a particular simulation does or does not >>>>>>>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It completely matters. DDD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>> proves the exact behavior that the input to HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It proves nothing without a proof that DDD is correctly simulated by HHH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have shown that proof too many times and people >>>>>>>>> denied the very obvious verified facts of it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have never shown any proof of anything. But a verifiable and verified >>>>>>>> fact is that DDD halts. An obvious conseqence of that fact is that every >>>>>>>> report that means 'DDD does not halt' is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When I provide proof that you cannot understand >>>>>>> this does not mean that I did not provide proof. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it does. >>>>> >>>>> What I just said is a truism, tautology, self-evident truth. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. It was an attempt to deceive with a false ad hominem. >>> >>> When self-evident truth are not understood they remain >>> self-evident. >> >> Likewise, what is not a self-evident truth does not become one >> when falsely claimed to be a self-evindet truth. >> >> For example, "what I don't understand is not a proof" is not self-evident. >> It depends on the additional information "I can understand proofs" that >> you can't have. > > If I show the steps of solving for X in an algebra > problem and you do not know as much as how to count > to five this does not mean that my proof is incorrect. Most likely I wouldn't say so but hard to be sure as you never show the steps of any proof and I can count to five. >> Likewse, "When I provide proof that you cannot understand this does not >> mean that I did not provide proof" is not self-evident as it assumes >> there are proofs that I cannot understand at least to the extent that I >> can recognise them as proofs. But that assumption is not self-evident >> and not true. > > Most every rebuttal of my work changes the words that > I actually said and then rebuts these changed words. Doesn't matter as long as you have no counter-arguments. -- Mikko