XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 11/18/24 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > 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:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > It is like I say that all black cows are black and   
   > are cows and you disagree.   
   >   
      
   Nope, just shows your stupidity,   
      
   The "Halting Problem" is the problem about giving the decider a   
   representation of a program and its input, and seeing if such a decider   
   can be found that answers correct about the halting behavior of that   
   program/data given to it.   
      
   It says NOTHING about the program reperesented by the input "calling"   
   its own termination analyzer, thought that would be a valid input, since   
   that is a valid program, and the correct decider needs to handle ALL inputs.   
      
   The proof takes any specific decider, (arbitrarily chosen) and build an   
   input using a copy of the decider which that one decider, no matter how   
   it processes its input, will give the wrong answer. Note, each decider   
   gets a DIFFERENT input, there isn't just one input that defeats them all.   
      
   If that ONE SPECIFIC decider says that the input built that way will   
   halt, then that input will be of a program that loops forever, and the   
   decider is proven to be incorrect.   
      
   If that ONE SPECIFIC decider says that the input built that way will   
   never halt, then that input will be a program that halts, and the   
   decider is proven to be incorrect.   
      
   If that ONE SPEICIFIC "decider" ends up never halting on that input,   
   then the "decider" is shown to not be a decider.   
      
   If that ONE SPECIFIC decider ends up "crashing" and halting on a   
   non-answer, then that decider is proven to be incorrect.   
      
   The decider a given input will show broken is fixed an unchangable   
   before we build the input, and it behavior for this input fixed by the   
   nature of programs. That it doesn't give the correct answer isn't the   
   fault of the input, but of the programmer that wrote it and claimed it   
   was correct.   
      
   You just don't seem to know enough about programs to understand that   
   their behavior is determined by their code, they do not have "choice" to   
   change their "mind".   
      
      
   YOU are the one claiming that the field full of white cows has black   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)