Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Jul 2024, 15:12:15
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6op7v$2fuva$5@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/11/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-10 18:58:14 +0000, olcott said:
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.
That is possible as "correctly" has different meaning when talking
about steps from when talking about simulations.
*No that is always false*
When you did one anythings correctly then you did
more than zero anythings correctly.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…