Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting --- incorrect either way

On 7/11/24 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2024 2:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

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 you said logically entails that a correct simulation
of 1 step counts as a correct simulation of 0 steps.

And since the only "correct simulation" would be of ALL the stes,

 

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.

 I am talking about the correct simulation of N steps and you
are trying to get away with saying there is no such thing
as the correct simulation of N steps. That is either terribly
confused or dishonest, yet incorrect either way.
 

But the correct simulation of N steps is NOT the correct simulation, which implies of ALL steps.
You have just been caught lying by being imprecise and claiming two different meanigs.