Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- What does halting mean?

Am Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:20:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/19/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:30:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/18/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/18/24 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/18/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote:

And then are no longer UTMs, and YES, if a machine based on such am
modifed UTM (so it is no long a UTM) when the UTM stops simulating,
we can not say the input halted, nor can we say it didn't halt.

When such a UTM has been adapted to only simulate the first ten states
of its input TMD, then every simulated TMD with more than ten states
did not terminate normally.

You are confusing the machines with their simulators. No longer
simulating has nothing to do with the simulatee. It does not "know" it
is being simulated. That is entirely in the power of the simulator.
Only it can freely choose to simulate more steps. The simulated machine
then proceeds.

Can you accept this?

The not-a-UTM just came to a no-answer state.

I have to go one-step-at-a-time with everyone or they get overwhelmed
and leap to the conclusion that I am wrong.

I am establishing the notion of abnormal termination for Turing machines
within the standard terms of the art.

The TM does not halt/terminate. The simulator does. Otherwise it would
continue. Whether the machine halts does not depend on how far you want
to calculate what it does.

The answer will be provided by useing an ACTUAL UTM that keeps on
going, or the direct execution of the machine,

You are stuck on the idea that repeating states cannot be recognized
in a finite number of steps.

Oh, they can. It's just that repeating states don't halt in a finite
number of steps.

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
Richard cannot understand that H0 can determine in a finite
number of steps that DDD correctly emulated by H0 cannot halt in a
finite number of steps. I used to think that he was lying about this. It
seems that the actual case is that I overestimated his skill level.

No, that part is correct.
Stop it with the insults.

Now that he says that when Bonita said "Everything correct"
he is taking this to mean something is wrong I am back to thinking that
he might be a liar.

The continuation "no further questions allowed" makes it sarcastic. They
know you and want to keep you from spamming their group.

--
joes