XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 11/19/24 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   No, that is IRRELEVENT as it isn't a proper question to ask a decider.   
      
   >   
   > DDD emulated by HHH1 DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT HHH1 must   
   > emulate itself emulating DDD.   
      
   But "itself" isn't the criteria, it is the emulation of DDD calling the   
   HHH that you claim to be correct.   
      
   >   
   > Other details that are logically entailed by the above   
   > key facts are also relevant. EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT.   
   >   
      
   No, the fact that you criteria is INVALID as a criteria for a decider   
   because it is SUBJECTIVE, not a function of just DDD, and non-semantic,   
   means your arguement is just invalide.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)