XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 11/19/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 11/19/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > It has been the correct question to ask a simulating halt decider   
   > for more than two years now. My treatment for cancer will be every   
   > day for a year beginning next week.   
   >   
      
   Nope. IT may be what you WANT it to be, but you don't get to change the   
   question.   
      
   It may be the correct quesiton for your POOP in PO-nonsense theory, but   
   it isn't the correct question for a Halt Decider, and isn't even valid   
   for a decider in computation theory.   
      
   The fact that you keep on trying to claim it just proves that you are   
   just an ignorant idiot that turned himself into a pathological liar   
   because of his reckless disregard to the truth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)