Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 2024-05-02 18:35:19 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/2/2024 4:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/30/24 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:

 [ .... ]
 

When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer} to
the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we define halting
otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as halting.

 

Why?

 

That doesn't mean the machine reached a final state.

 

Alan seems to believe that a final state is whatever state that an
aborted simulation ends up in.

 Only through your twisted reasoning.  For your information, I hold to the
standard definition of final state, i.e. one which has no state following
it.  An aborted simulation is in some state, and that state is a final
one, since there is none following it.
 

On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination
isn't a final state.

 

Only if you try to define something that is NOT related to Halting, do
you get into that issue.

 

"The all new ideas are wrong" assessment.
Simulating termination analyzers <are> related to halting.

 Except you cannot define what such a thing is, and that relationship is
anything but clear.

 When a simulating termination analyzer matches one of three
non-halting behavior patterns
(a) Simple Infinite loop
(b) Simple Infinite Recursion
(c) Simple Recursive Simulation

Simple recursive simulation is not a non-halting behaviour
if the recursion is not infinite.
--
Mikko