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

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:52:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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. A termination analyzer need
not be a Turing computable function.

It definitely does. An uncomputable analyser is useless.

When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD
*correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.

Only because the nested HHH doesn't abort.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.