| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vevs0l$3qa2v$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative definitions Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:52:37 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 62 Message-ID: <vevs0l$3qa2v$1@dont-email.me> 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: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:52:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7f05503354eec5ee8ccd6a83bd8fd864"; logging-data="4008031"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bFvdvDnOJcU7ujKqdQaCU" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:sfocOUZry8677XHMHbXgQJB/63Q= Bytes: 4358 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". -- Mikko