Sujet : Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Jun 2025, 15:24:57
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <102c3jp$20jl4$9@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/11/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 17:12:24 +0000, olcott said:
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.
Likewise, what is not a self-evident truth does not become one
when falsely claimed to be a self-evindet truth.
For example, "what I don't understand is not a proof" is not self-evident.
It depends on the additional information "I can understand proofs" that
you can't have.
If I show the steps of solving for X in an algebra
problem and you do not know as much as how to count
to five this does not mean that my proof is incorrect.
Likewse, "When I provide proof that you cannot understand this does not
mean that I did not provide proof" is not self-evident as it assumes
there are proofs that I cannot understand at least to the extent that I
can recognise them as proofs. But that assumption is not self-evident
and not true.
Most every rebuttal of my work changes the words that
I actually said and then rebuts these changed words.
Other rebuttals start with false assumptions. When I
correct these false assumptions my corrections are always
ignored and the same incorrect rebuttal is provided
endlessly again and again.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
