Sujet : Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 ---
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.com (joes)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 05. May 2024, 18:57:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <pan$e1f0a$e9d372b7$27a3381e$edcd720c@example.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sun, 05 May 2024 11:29:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/5/2024 10:42 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 05 May 2024 09:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 05.mei.2024 om 05:17 schreef olcott:
On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
[please snip your replies a little]
Note, you CAN'T just "Stipulate" that a given machine IS a UTM
except by defining that it works just like a UTM, which means, for
one thing, it can NEVER abort its simulation, not even after
determining that it will simulate this input forever.
>
None-the-less a TM that correctly simulates N steps cannot be said
to have simulated those N steps incorrectly on the basis that it
could have simulated N+1 steps.
>
Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops
after N steps make it an incorrect simulation.
>
In other words a decider is wrong unless it never stops simulating an
non-halting input?
Correct. Simulating here means producing the exact same behaviour. If
it is correct up to a point, it might still make a mistake later.
The only way to know is to keep simulating.
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
It is counter-factual that the above must be infinitely simulated to
correctly determine that it never halts.
But then it is not „simulation”, rather (static) analysis.
-- joes
…