Sujet : Re: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating termination analyzers are supposed to work
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Nov 2024, 16:01:13
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <121ed51b0b0edea83c2c5abb50e7eca9fe1a6066@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/11/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/11/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-11-10 19:28:28 +0000, olcott said:
>
*The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
>
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
Correct simulation is defined as D is emulated by H according to
the semantics of the x86 language thus includes H emulating itself
emulating D.
>
No, that definition does not apply to Sipser's words. There a "correct
simulation" measn a simulation that Sipser regards as correct, which
probably is the same as what "coreect simulation" means in Common
Language.
>
How could disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
possibly be correct?
The semantics of the x86 language are correct. You are just to stupid to undetstand what those are,
Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating termination analyzers are supposed to work
Re: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating termination analyzers are supposed to work