Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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: Sun, 1 Jun 2025 21:19:04 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <1e5e5837ae9e60daa16e5fef3693ff424c1049d2@i2pn2.org> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 01:24:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2896449"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <101iheg$2h3fr$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US 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. Your problem is you "logic" has a self-contradictory defintion for what HHH actually is, and that built in self-contradiction just breaks you logic system. Sorry, all you are doing is demonstrating that your concept of "logic" is something that allows lies, equivocation, and contradictions, and thus isn't actually logic. All you are doing is showing that you are just a pathetic ignorant pathological liar that doesn't care about what is actually true.