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: I am claiming that these exact words are necessarily true
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:12:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aa4e172d3fbf4e3ea26cfe67ad32b78d9e57ab53@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$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:12:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1923334"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vehn9c$sfi5$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6341
Lines: 147

On 10/13/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 am not and never have been claiming anything
>>>>>>>>> about incorrect paraphrases of these exact words:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *HHH rejects DDD as non terminating*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which judst makes HHH wrong, since DDD will terminate, since 
>>>>>>>> that term applies to the PROGRAM that the input represents., and 
>>>>>>>> if HHH rejects it, it returns to its caller, and thus DDD will 
>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
>>>>>>>>> then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The emulation of DDD by HHH never reaches a final state, but it 
>>>>>>>> HHH aborts its emulation and return 0, then the PROGRAM DDD will 
>>>>>>>> return.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rebutting an incorrect paraphrase of my exact words
>>>>>>> <is> the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
>>>>>>>>> 0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its 
>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, since termination is a property of the PROGRAM, and not a 
>>>>>>>> partial emuation of it, you answer is proven wrong, and you are 
>>>>>>>> guilty of using unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rebutting an incorrect paraphrase of my exact words
>>>>>>> <is> the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I rebuted your exact words. 
>>>>>
>>>>> That statement is counter-factual.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, your statement is just a blantent lie.
>>>>
>>>> Where did you refute what I said, or are you claiming I didn't say 
>>>> anything?
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving you are nothing but an out and out liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> It doesn't (per your arguement) so the input is just invalid.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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().

Which is a requirement for the language, and only for HOSTED system.

It is not the requirement for a program in Computation Theory.

> 
>>>
>>>  >>>>> 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.
>>
>> You are just proving that you are either totally ignorant of what you 
>> are talking about, or just trying to be dishonest, but so stupid your 
>> errors are in plain sight.
>>
>> Sorry, that *IS* the facts, but you seem to be unable to undertstand 
>> them.
> 
> ChatGPT does point out all of your mistakes.
> When you point out its mistake it explains how any why you are wrong.
> 

Nope, it explains that in REALITY the input is non-halting, and the 
repeats the lies you gave it about being able to decide on wrong conditions.

Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance, and that you think lying is 
accceptable.

Until you can explain how, when the ONLY actual requuirement is based on 
the behavior of the program described, which has DDD call the HHH(DDD) 
that does return 0 and thus DDD Halts, and thus DDD halt, it can 
possible be "correct" to say it is non-terminating.

Sorry, your brain is just totally exploded by the contradictions you 
have put into your logic system.