XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 11/17/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 11/17/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 11/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Look again at what they process. C functions that include all the   
   >> functions they call.   
   >>   
   >   
   > You stupidly claimed termination analysis is only done   
   > on programs. I proved that you were stupidly wrong on   
   > pages 24-27 of the PDF of this paper.   
   >   
   > Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs   
   > https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf   
   >   
   >   
      
   The problem here is you are mixing language between domains. Just read   
   the TITLE of that paper, it is doing analysis on PROGRAMS in the   
   computation sense.   
      
   Yes, a computational program might be a "function" in the programing   
   language side, but not just any function, but only functions when you   
   include all the functions they call.   
      
   If you gave that analyzer your DDD input (and not include a copy of HHH)   
   it will almost certainly reject the input as not complete.   
      
   All you are doing is proving that you are just totally ignorant of the   
   material you are talking about, and just quoting by rote   
   non-understanding things you have seen.   
      
   Sorry, but that is the cost of claiming to be doing "important" work in   
   a field you do not actually understand, you just prove your stu   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)