Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative
 definitions
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 17:45:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <347bf09b026ddc8fc593fce3d5aee5d192ce0985@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me>
 <72315c1456c399b2121b3fffe90b933be73e39b6@i2pn2.org>
 <vee6s1$7l0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <1180775691cf24be4a082676bc531877147202e3@i2pn2.org>
 <veec23$8jnq$1@dont-email.me>
 <c81fcbf97a35bd428495b0e70f3b54e545e8ae59@i2pn2.org>
 <vef37r$bknp$2@dont-email.me>
 <7e79306e9771378b032e6832548eeef7429888c4@i2pn2.org>
 <veikaf$14fb3$1@dont-email.me> <veipmb$15764$2@dont-email.me>
 <c56fcfcf793d65bebd7d17db4fccafd1b8dea072@i2pn2.org>
 <vejfg0$1879f$3@dont-email.me>
 <bde5947ebdcfb62ecd6e8968052cb3a25c4b1fec@i2pn2.org>
 <vekfi5$1d7rn$1@dont-email.me>
 <6d73c2d966d1d04dcef8f7f9e0c849e17bd73352@i2pn2.org>
 <velnqn$1n3gb$3@dont-email.me>
 <b06c4952248d83881642c7d84207d3d39c56c59f@i2pn2.org>
 <vend90$22rqh$1@dont-email.me>
 <674657dfa495f0e99eed360a8bba9a719bb8f319@i2pn2.org>
 <vepl64$2f3g0$1@dont-email.me> <vevs0l$3qa2v$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf04dk$3rc0m$7@dont-email.me>
 <a0cfa54e08fc08f1dcc50b4fa1f4fb4338b337f5@i2pn2.org>
 <vf05c4$3rr97$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 21:46:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2793727"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vf05c4$3rr97$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6081
Lines: 99

On 10/19/24 7:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/19/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/19/24 7:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-17 00:19:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 4:58 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:12:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/24 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/24 5:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trying to change to a different analytical framework than 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am stipulating is the strawman deception. *Essentially an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentional fallacy of equivocation error*
>>>>>>>>>>>> But, you claim to be working on that Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>> I quit claiming this many messages ago and you didn't bother 
>>>>>>>>>>> to notice.
>>>>>>>>>> Can you please give the date and time? Did you also explicitly 
>>>>>>>>>> disclaim
>>>>>>>>>> it or just silently leave it out?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even people of low intelligence that are not trying to
>>>>>>>>> be as disagreeable as possible would be able to notice
>>>>>>>>> that a specified C function is not a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it needs to be computationally equivalent to one to ask 
>>>>>>>> about Termination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
>>>>>>> A termination analyzer need not be a Turing computable function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the function return values are identical for identical arguments 
>>>>>> (no variation with local static variables, non-local variables, 
>>>>>> mutable reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential 
>>>>>> transparency),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't stipulate that something is a standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> A c function terminates when it reaches its "return"
>>>>> instruction. I stipulate this basic fact because you
>>>>> disagree with basic facts. When it is stipulated then
>>>>> your disagreement is necessarily incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> It is not a fact. It is a definition that excludes from the meaning
>>>> of "terminate" certain possibilities that could reasonably be called
>>>> "termination".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Halting in computer science corresponds maps to normal
>>> termination in software engineering. For C functions
>>> reaching the "return" instruction is the only kind of
>>> normal termination.
>>>
>>
>> Right, which only apply to the FINAL behavior of program/functions 
>> (the domain of discussion) whicn include all of the code that object 
>> uses.
>>
> 
> When I say that HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DDD
> your only rebuttal is double-talk nonsense.
> 

No, I just need to point out that your definition are incorrect in the 
context you use them in.

A "Correct Emulation" to determine final behavior must be complete.

HHH's emulation is not conplete, and thus does not show final behavior,

Thus, either you are lying that your meaning of "correct emulation" CAN 
be used to talk about final behavior, because you are using some other 
definition, or that your HHH doesn't do a correct emulation.

When the equivocation is pointed out, you have just ducked and dodge, 
showing that you understand you equivocation, but are trying to avoid 
dealing with it as it kills your arguement.

S0rry, you are just proving you are nothing but a pathological lying idiot.