XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   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:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Your DDD doesn't meet that requirement, as you explicityly try to   
   exclude the HHH that it calls as part of it.   
      
   Thus, you are just proving that you ane nothing but a liar.   
      
   Which you prove even by your own definitions, as you trim off the parts   
   you can't handle to take things out of context.   
      
   You are just proving your utter stupidity and complete ignoracne of what   
   you talk about.   
      
   You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO references about "Just C Functions, even one   
   that call parts that aren't included", just like you have zero evidence   
   for your claims and zero brains that you can apply to the problem.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)