Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I am claiming that these exact words are necessarily true
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 09:03:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <vegjvp$lk27$15@dont-email.me>
References: <vegf4c$lk27$8@dont-email.me>
 <b736ad53f8783e70e229ff0650d5bc439eaa57ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vegh94$lk27$13@dont-email.me>
 <5796b6ca5991a6b0ea4e66b83ed28b664782d15d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 16:03:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dff4ea9256eef2f131620d81ba94869";
	logging-data="708679"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18GBCJrtM3rB0SqZ274216D"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uyoZXiEaN2QAKjg1CfTZYPxOHgQ=
In-Reply-To: <5796b6ca5991a6b0ea4e66b83ed28b664782d15d@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3535

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.

I specifically refer to whether or not a specific C function
(source-code provided) reaches its own "return" instruction.

This <is> the correct measure for the termination analysis
of C functions.

Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
Figure 5.3: Non-Terminating C Function

You try to get away with the pure bluster of declaring that
this C function is not even a C function.

> The fact that they are equivical is your 
> own fault, since the other meaning, the one you seem to want to use, is 
> based on a category error, it can't be correct. (partial emulation do 
> not have a non-terminating property)
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer