Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.

Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:58 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2024 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:12 schreef Alan Mackenzie:

[ Followup-To: set ]

>

In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

Proving that the simulation is incorrect. Because a correct simulation
would not abort a halting program halfway its simulation.

>

Just for clarity, a correct simulation wouldn't abort a non-halting
program either, would it?  Or have I misunderstood this correctness?

>

[ .... ]

>
>

A non-halting program cannot be simulated correctly in a finite time.
So, it depends whether we can call it a correct simulation, when it does
not abort. But, for some meaning of 'correct', indeed, a simulator
should not abort a non-halting program either.

>
OK, thanks!
>

 In other words he is saying that when you do
1 step correctly you did 0 steps correctly.
 

That is not what I said.
What I said is that if a program needs two steps for a simulation, it is incorrect to simulate only one step and then abort and report it will never halt.
English seems to be a difficult language for you.