Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On 6/10/25 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 2:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-08 06:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/8/2025 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-04 16:27:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/4/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-03 20:28:36 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/3/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-02 15:23:15 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/2/2025 1:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-01 21:41:36 +0000, olcott said:
>

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*

>
It does not matter whether a particular simulation does or does not
reach its "return" instruction.

>
It completely matters. DDD correctly simulated by HHH
proves the exact behavior that the input to HHH(DDD)
actually specifies.

>
It proves nothing without a proof that DDD is correctly simulated by HHH.

>
I have shown that proof too many times and people
denied the very obvious verified facts of it.

>
You have never shown any proof of anything. But a verifiable and verified
fact is that DDD halts. An obvious conseqence of that fact is that every
report that means 'DDD does not halt' is wrong.

>
When I provide proof that you cannot understand
this does not mean that I did not provide proof.

>
Yes, it does.

>
What I just said is a truism, tautology, self-evident truth.

>
No, it is not. It was an attempt to deceive with a false ad hominem.
>

 When self-evident truth are not understood they remain
self-evident. If you want to try to disagree with a
self-evident truth you must proceed through the statement
one point at a time and point out exactly how and why
this point seems to be incorrect.

Since your "self-evedent truth" is talking about things that are category errors for the properties they are talking about, the statement, by the actual meaning of the words is non-sense.
You have admitted and stipulated that DDD is NOT A PROGRAM, but is only the code of the C function DDD. As such, it CAN NOT be simulated or executed past that call instruction, and thus doesn't have a property of the category "Halting/Non-Halting".
Since it si IMPOSSIBLE to correctly simulate an input that isn't a program (as the domain for correct simulation is the domain of representations of programs) your statement is just based on a false premise.

 Even the stupidest bot that ever existed: "Eliza"
could baselessly disagree. It could spit out disagreement
as boiler-plate English sentences that it does not understand.
 

And you are proving yourself stupider than that, as you keep on repeating claims proven to be category errors.
This shows that you just don't care about what is actually truth, putting you into the same category as climate change and election deniers.