Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I am claiming that these exact words are necessarily true
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:23:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <552d5840896df75da23e0a1adc3926aa055cf767@i2pn2.org>
References: <vegf4c$lk27$8@dont-email.me>
	<b736ad53f8783e70e229ff0650d5bc439eaa57ef@i2pn2.org>
	<vegh94$lk27$13@dont-email.me>
	<5796b6ca5991a6b0ea4e66b83ed28b664782d15d@i2pn2.org>
	<vegjvp$lk27$15@dont-email.me>
	<296b3e6b8a2ef992135b25153c6caaeccf982249@i2pn2.org>
	<veh6cp$orit$2@dont-email.me>
	<6e1fcdf934e428434feeb4931612381e14d44216@i2pn2.org>
	<vehn9c$sfi5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:23:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1969239"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3274
Lines: 42

Am Sun, 13 Oct 2024 19:06:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/13/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/13/24 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2024 1:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/24 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2024 8:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/24 9:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2024 8:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:

>>>>> I specifically refer to whether or not a specific C function
>>>>> (source-code provided) reaches its own "return" instruction.
>>>> Right, and such behavior is only defined with the definition of every
>>>> thing that function calls.
>>> Finally you said something that is correct.
>> So, the Input representing "DDD" must include the code of HHH.

>>>>> This <is> the correct measure for the termination analysis of C
>>>>> functions.
>>>> Right, but it included the ACTUAL behavior of the HHH that DDD calls.
>>> Yes you are correct again.
>> So, since HHH(DDD) returns 0, then that *IS* the behavior that HHH
>> needs to presume (or deduce) when emulating that instuction.

>>>>> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
>>>>> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
>>>>> Figure 5.3: Non-Terminating C Function
>>>> Right, which looks at code that doesn't actually return, because it
>>>> gets stuck in an actual infinte loop.
>>> The point here is that termination analysis does not only refer to
>>> complete programs as you said
>> But a subroutine, with all the subroutines it uses *IS* a "complete
>> program" per the definitions.
> No it is not it has no main().
You can put it as the sole call to main() and it will compile.

>>>  >>>>> No, since termination is a property of the PROGRAM
>>> it also applies to C functions proving that you were wrong about this.
>> But only when included *ALL* the code called by it.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.