Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 10. Jul 2024, 21:49:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6ms4h$22g4i$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
