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

Op 12.jul.2024 om 15:25 schreef olcott:

On 7/12/2024 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 14:12:15 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
If I only correcly do one thing that is not a part of my routine then
I don't do my routine correctly. If I do correctly every part of my routine
but do them in a wrong order I don't do my routine correctly.
>

 Fred was trying to get away with saying that when 1
step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH that 0 steps
were emulated correctly.
 

Olcott has a problem with the English language.
I said that when a program needs 2 cycles of simulation, it is incorrect to abort after 1 cycle and decide it is non-halting.
His problem seems to be that he thinks that skipping x86 instructions in the simulation does not change the behaviour of a program.
There are more situations where he seems to have a problem with the English language. He thinks that everything greater than 2 equals infinity. When a program has more than two recursions, he thinks it is non-halting.
It is very difficult to discuss with someone with such a poor understanding of the English language, because he continuously twists the meaning of words, both his own words as well as the words of his opponents.