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 07:29:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a0cfa54e08fc08f1dcc50b4fa1f4fb4338b337f5@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <vedb3s$3g3a$1@dont-email.me>
 <vedibm$4891$2@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:29:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2727661"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vf04dk$3rc0m$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5339
Lines: 83

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.

Thus, "DDD" includes the "HHH" that is calls, and thus its code, and 
chanings that makes it a different input.

Thus your "Hypothtical HHH" that doesn't abort, to test if HHH needed to 
abort, must have as its input the DDD that called the original HHH, not 
the Hypothetical HHH.

Your refusal to do that just proves you don't understand what you are 
talking about.