Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Jul 2024, 08:20:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6o140$2bop2$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
…