Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar

On 11/20/24 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/19/2024 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/19/24 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/19/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/19/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/19/2024 10:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:44:17 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/19/2024 5:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:21:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/18/2024 1:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 1:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 10:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 2:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>

Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a
"Program" is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.

YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.
A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT PROGRAM WHEN I
ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.

But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as
both of those are operations done on PROGRAMS.

No stupid I provided a published paper that includes the
termination analysis of C functions.

Look again at what they process. C functions that include all
the functions they call.

You stupidly claimed termination analysis is only done on
programs. I proved that you were stupidly wrong on pages 24-27
of the PDF of this paper.
Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/

972440.pdf

The problem here is you are mixing language between domains.

I said the termination analysis applies to C functions you said
that it does not. No weasel words around it YOU WERE WRONG!

Termination analysis applies to FUNCTIONS, FULL FUNCTIONS, ones
that include everything that is part of them. Those things, in
computation theory, are called PROGRAMS.

The top of PDF page 24 are not programs defection for brains.
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/ files/972440.pdf

Those *ARE* "Computation Theory" Programs.
They are also  LEAF functions, unlike your DDD.
NOTHING in that paper (form what I can see) talks about handling non-
leaf-functions with including all the code in the routines it calls.

Since the halting problem is defined to have the input call its own
termination analyzer and the termination analyzer is itself required
to halt then any sequence of this input that would prevent it from
halting IS A NON-HALTING SEQUENCE THAT MUST BE ABORTED AND CANNOT BE
ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.

What happens when we run HHH(HHH)?

The ONLY thing that it relevant

>
Whatever. I was asking a different question. Furthermore, what happens
when we run HHH1(DDD), HHH1(DDD1), HHH(DDD1)?
>

>
I cannot afford to tolerate changing the subject to irrelevant
points. Ben Bacarisse had me stuck for 15 years with his
change-the-subject rebuttals. My cancer has gotten worse too
soon so I can't waste time on that.

>
Then why did you do it?
>
After all, you stated goal is to prove halting is decidable,

>
Through a specific sequence of steps.
>

>
But arguements based on nonsense don't provide steps to a proof.
>

 You are a damned liar.
 

Nope. but it seems you are.
You have been unable to meet your own requirement of starting from the accepted truths of the logic system you imply you are working in, as that is the system the proofs you claim to be able to refute are in, and you can only refute a proof in the system it was done in.
If you want to claim you have a system that doesn't suffer from the "problems" you don't like, you need to actually FULLY DEFINE that system, which means stating what the base logic system you are going to work from, and the complete list of axioms for your system.
Since you talk about needing to change the meaning of some statements of logic, that means you first need to fully define how your logic works, which means FULLY defining your terms.
Sorry, I suspect your problem is that you just don't understand how to do any of that, so you need to just work with your logical fallacies to try to make your lying points.