XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/17/2024 2:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> void DDD()   
   >>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>>>    return;   
   >>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> _DDD()   
   >>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping   
   >>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping   
   >>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD   
   >>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)   
   >>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04   
   >>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp   
   >>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret   
   >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> DDD emulated by any encoding of HHH that emulates N   
   >>>>>> to infinity number of steps of DDD cannot possibly   
   >>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final halt state.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> This applies to every DDD emulated by any HHH no   
   >>>>>> matter the recursive depth of emulation. Thus it is   
   >>>>>> a verified fact that the input to HHH never halts.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I will also add, that since you have dropped your requirements on   
   >>>>> HHH (or are seeming to try to divorse yourself from previous   
   >>>>> assumptions) there are MANY HHH that can complete the emulation,   
   >>>>> they just fail to be "pure functions".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The damned liar despicably dishonest attempt to get away   
   >>>> with changing the subject away from DDD reaching its final   
   >>>> halt state.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a "Program"   
   >>> is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.   
   >> A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT   
   >> PROGRAM WHEN I ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as both of   
   > those are operations done on PROGRAMS.   
   >   
      
   No stupid I provided a published paper that includes the   
   termination analysis of C functions.   
      
   LLVM is equivalent to x86 code. PDF page 27   
      
   Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs   
   https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)