Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating
 itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:41:00 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8de8d688b88417adb39846c9da6e6ec3a7dbedbc@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <c8e35b5f542012b2d798e7fe2afc3004298a2aa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vhdn96$r2jp$1@dont-email.me>
 <907b6e45c74720036b5f42c503d76ac426a71c92@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe69i$tuln$2@dont-email.me>
 <622e5aa555a9941d4cdb292d1e3e54e687e7b547@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe9rl$ue1m$2@dont-email.me>
 <254d3e7be0462ba8225ec0eb4804941ea635770d@i2pn2.org>
 <vheecn$12v3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <031e34cbeacc2a7b5145fd1f25ccee588e8cfb43@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg1oe$1cfbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <aa621f0677187fad3eb5b7f20715247c3ffbd61e@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg39s$1csnf$1@dont-email.me>
 <b4aade7ae93d862bd313e00abe20deab78124e18@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg7jg$1dmht$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8a9608b7ae74fde0e364d794faeeed25dd2e227@i2pn2.org>
 <vhi881$1sm67$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c3e624c991637a3350c0eb050fb5632df5fe615@i2pn2.org>
 <vhifre$1u57l$1@dont-email.me>
 <49e04fa1fbc3a9414b5cacddc540db04173a48ea@i2pn2.org>
 <vhjktl$28t3s$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:41:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3288501"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhjktl$28t3s$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6874
Lines: 99

On 11/19/24 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/19/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/19/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2024 10:32 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:44:17 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Whatever. I was asking a different question. Furthermore, what happens
>>>> when we run HHH1(DDD), HHH1(DDD1), HHH(DDD1)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cannot afford to tolerate changing the subject to irrelevant
>>> points. Ben Bacarisse had me stuck for 15 years with his
>>> change-the-subject rebuttals. My cancer has gotten worse too
>>> soon so I can't waste time on that.
>>
>> Then why did you do it?
>>
>> After all, you stated goal is to prove halting is decidable, 
> 
> Through a specific sequence of steps.
> 

But arguements based on nonsense don't provide steps to a proof.

As even you have stated, to show something to be true, you have to START 
at the defines axioms of the system.

Thus, "halt deciders" or "Termination analyzers" take as there inputs 
descriptions of programs / computations, not nonsense.

They also need to answer about an objective mapping that is a function 
of JUST that input, and not anything about the decider looking at it.

You miss on both of these, and thus your "criteria" is just INVALID, and 
your insistance on it just proves that you are a stupid idiot.

If you have some way to actually show the relevance, you need to present 
it FIRST to make you statements admissible.

Of course you can't do that because your arguement is based on ciruclar 
reasoning with equivocations, and that gets revealed too obviously if 
you are forced to do things in the right order.

Sorry, you lie is exposed and your stupidity has been made obvious.