Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vf06kt$3s4mu$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!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 14:54:05 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <vf06kt$3s4mu$1@dont-email.me>
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: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:54:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="154d855287b685e8b531f2676fec0915";
	logging-data="4068062"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+c9IgZWQ7GT8ARsr3GpL/o"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i6Bs93z4A5oiIsznJPxIyIsc5fM=
Bytes: 4774

On 2024-10-19 11:16:04 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

An abnormal termination is usually regarded as a termination.

-- 
Mikko