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

On 7/11/24 10:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-10 18:58:14 +0000, olcott said:
>

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 possible as "correctly" has different meaning when talking
about steps from when talking about simulations.
>

 *No that is always false*
When you did one anythings correctly then you did
more than zero anythings correctly.
 

But one step, when it needs to be followed by the next, isn't actually fully correct.
And anything that isn't fully correct is only partially correct which is just a soft talking way to talk about something that is INCORRECT.