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: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:37:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f8691b3ebc009284c9018631f91c9b53ee906353@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <vebmta$3nqde$1@dont-email.me>
 <99541b6e95dc30204bf49057f8f4c4496fbcc3db@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:37:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2366789"; 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: <vepl64$2f3g0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4997
Lines: 74

On 10/16/24 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

We don't disagree with that, just if a partial emulation (even if 
correct as far as it goes) shows that the function doesn't reach that 
return.

The criteria is NOT the "emulation by the decider" reaching the return 
instruction, it is the BEHAIVOR of the function, which is its direct 
execution (or COMPLETE and correct emulation) that determines that, and 
the function is DEFINED to include the code of everything it calls.

You have agreed that the directly executed DDD will return, thus you 
have agreed, by your above stipulation, and the required definition of 
behavior that HHH is just incorrect to say it doesn't.

Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be nothing but a stupid 
pathological liar.