Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On 6/10/25 12:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-08 05:57:27 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/8/2025 12:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-04 16:03:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/4/2025 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-03 20:25:51 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/3/2025 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-02 15:55:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/2/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-02 03:32:28 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/1/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/25 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2025 6:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-30 15:41:59 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/30/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-29 18:10:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/29/2025 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>
🧠 Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
>
In the classical framework of computation theory (Turing machines),
simulation is not equivalent to execution, though they can approximate one
another.

>
To the best of my knowledge a simulated input
always has the exact same behavior as the directly
executed input unless this simulated input calls
its own simulator.

>
The simulation of the behaviour should be equivalent to the real
behaviour.

>
That is the same as saying a function with infinite
recursion must have the same behavior as a function
without infinite recursion.

>
A function does not have a behaviour. A function has a value for
every argument in its domain.
>
A function is not recursive. A definition of a function can be
recursive. There may be another way to define the same function
without recursion.
>
A definition of a function may use infinite recursion if it is also
defined how that infinite recursion defines a value.
>
Anyway, from the meaning of "simulation" follows that a simulation
of a behaviour is (at least in some sense) similar to the real
behaviour. Otherwise no simulation has happened.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>

>
No it doesn't, as HHH is defined to abort and simulation after finite time, and thus only does finite simulation.
>

>
See right there you changed the words.
I said nothing about finite or infinite simulation.
You said that I am wrong about something that I didn't even say.

>
Again you are trying a sraw man deception. RIchard Damon did not change
your words, he only wrote his own. He did not claim that you said anything
about "finite" or "infinite" but that you should understand the difference.

>
Unlike most people here I do understand that not
possibly reaching a final halt state *is* non-halting behavior.

>
You don't understand it correctly. Whether a computation is halting is a
feature of the computation, not a particular exectuion of that coputation.
A halting computation is a halting computation even if its execution is
discontinued before reaching the final halt state.

>
int main()
{
   DDD(); // Do you understand that the HHH(DDD) that this DDD
}        // calls is only accountable for the behavior of its
          // input, and thus NOT accountable for the behavior
          // of its caller?

>
I don't set any requirements on HHH. I just note that if HHH does not
return a value that means "halts" it is not a halt decider and not
even a partial halt decider, because the direct execution of DDD has
been shown to halt.

>
If HHH(DDD) is supposed to report on the behavior
of the direct execution of DDD()

>
dbush insists that it is required.

>
In news:10241b0$3rjen$1@dont-email.me dbush says "It is both allowed and
possible" but that does not matter much. More important is that that
prohibition is not present in typcial textbooks or original articles.
>

 Yes and everyone knows that these textbooks are infallibly
all knowing. If we had one trillion years to improve our
understanding of computer science we would never discover
one tiny nuance of detail more than we currently know
because everyone knows that all computer science textbook
are infallibly all knowing.

No one says they are "All Knowing"
They *ARE* a good source of the definitions of the system.
It seems that you share our Presidents aversion to actually reading sources to get data.

 int main()
{
   DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD)
}
 It is neither allowed nor possible for HHH to report
on the behavior of its caller on the basis of its actual
input.

Sure it is, in fact it is REQUIRED. DDD calls HHH(DDD), giving HHH the representation of the PROGRAM DDD, for it to answer about what that program does.
If your system doesn't mean that, then you whole system is just a lie, as that is what the proof program does.

 It is not possible for this HHH to see any aspect of its
caller. This HHH has no idea that it is not called
from main().
 

Right, and that is why when DDD calls HHH(DDD) that HHH must still answer about the behavior of the program DDD, which is what its caller is.
The MEANING of the DDD as passed to HHH must be, a representation of the program known as DDD, fully and completely showing its algorithm in enough detail to allow for the recreation of the behavior of the program DDD (as by a UTM).
If it doesn't mean that, then you are just admitting that you have been lying for YEARS about being the equivalent of the proof program, as that is EXACTLY what it is defined to do, to pass to the decider, a representation of itself, to ask it what the decider thinks it will do.