Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative definitions

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.
Since your defintions are NOT the "industry standard" for what you are doing with them, you are just proving that you are a liar.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then
each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.

Nope, explnied previopusly and you can't refute it, so you are just making your lying assertion again.
NO part of the industry standard definitions defines "correct emulation" to include partial emulation AND say that such emulation define final behaivor.
Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance of what you claim to be an expert, thus that you are nothing but a liar.

 Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.
 

Nope.