Sujet : Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 30. Apr 2024, 18:10:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v0r55p$2hb7o$10@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/30/2024 10:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 30.apr.2024 om 17:18 schreef olcott:
On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:
On 4/29/2024 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2024 11:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2024 10:23 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2024 9:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>
Even the term "halting" is problematic.
For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason.
>
[ .... ]
>
Having been aborted (if such were possible) is merely another final
state for a TM.
>
No it definitely is not.
>
In a TM, each state is either a final state or a non-final state. Are
you arguing for a third alternative, or do you think that "having been
aborted" is a non-final state? If the latter, what state does the TM
change to next?
>
Aborted means completely dead as if you pulled the power cord
on your computer.
>
A turing machine has no power cord to pull. You didn't answer my point;
you evaded it.
>
When the payroll system crashes 10% of the way through calculating
payroll we cannot say that everyone has been paid.
>
Of course not, but it has nevertheless reached a final state, an
unsatisfactory one, since it is no longer running on the computer.
>
That is not what "theory of computation" {final state} means.
>
I think it is. What do you think "final state" means, and how is "having
been aborted" not one?
>
Core dump abnormal termination does not count as the program
correctly finished its processing.
>
There is no notion of "correct" in a turing machine.
>
In other words when a TM computes the sum of 2 + 3 and derives
999999999999999999999999999 then that is just fine.
>
Don't be idiotic. A TM that gets that answer from those starting
conditions isn't calculating their sum; it's doing something else.
>
>
The ONLY way that we can determine if any computation is correct
is when it meets its specification. When a TM is specified to
calculate the sum of a pair of decimal integers and it derives
any decimal integer other than 5 from inputs 2,3 then it is incorrect.
>
>
Changing the subject. The question is not whether it is correct, but whether it halts. Incorrect programs exist and even those program may halt.
>
>
I had to address this:
>
On 4/29/2024 11:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> There is no notion of "correct" in a turing machine. It is either
> running, or has reached a final state. In the TM equivalent of "core
> dump", a final state has most definitely been reached.
>
Yes, he did that because olcott changed subject from halting to 'halting with a correct result'. Does it mean that olcott is now no longer working on a halting decider, but a '"correct halting" decider', or even a 'correct decider'?
Alan changed the subject I addressed that point and then moved on.
If someone does not even know what "correct" means then they can't
know what "halting" means.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer