XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/19/2024 5:56 AM, joes wrote:   
   > Am Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:21:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:   
   >> On 11/18/2024 1:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 11/18/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/18/2024 1:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/18/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/18/2024 10:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> 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:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I said the termination analysis applies to C functions you said that   
   >>>>>> it does not. No weasel words around it YOU WERE WRONG!   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Termination analysis applies to FUNCTIONS, FULL FUNCTIONS, ones that   
   >>>>> include everything that is part of them. Those things, in computation   
   >>>>> theory, are called PROGRAMS.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The top of PDF page 24 are not programs defection for brains.   
   >>>> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf   
   >>>>   
   >>> Those *ARE* "Computation Theory" Programs.   
   >>> They are also  LEAF functions, unlike your DDD.   
   >>> NOTHING in that paper (form what I can see) talks about handling non-   
   >>> leaf-functions with including all the code in the routines it calls.   
   >>>   
   >> Since the halting problem is defined to have the input call its own   
   >> termination analyzer and the termination analyzer is itself required to   
   >> halt then any sequence of this input that would prevent it from halting   
   >> IS A NON-HALTING SEQUENCE THAT MUST BE ABORTED AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO   
   >> CONTINUE.   
   > What happens when we run HHH(HHH)?   
   >   
      
   The ONLY thing that it relevant is that DDD emulated by   
   HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language specifies   
   that HHH must emulate itself emulating DDD and   
      
   DDD emulated by HHH1 DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT HHH1 must   
   emulate itself emulating DDD.   
      
   Other details that are logically entailed by the above   
   key facts are also relevant. EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT.   
      
   --   
   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)