Re: I am claiming that these exact words are necessarily true

On 10/13/24 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/13/2024 8:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/13/24 9:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/13/2024 8:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/13/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:

I am not and never have been claiming anything
about incorrect paraphrases of these exact words:
>
*HHH rejects DDD as non terminating*

>
Which judst makes HHH wrong, since DDD will terminate, since that term applies to the PROGRAM that the input represents., and if HHH rejects it, it returns to its caller, and thus DDD will halt.
>

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

>
The emulation of DDD by HHH never reaches a final state, but it HHH aborts its emulation and return 0, then the PROGRAM DDD will return.
>

>
Rebutting an incorrect paraphrase of my exact words
<is> the strawman deception.
>

>
Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.

>
No, since termination is a property of the PROGRAM, and not a partial emuation of it, you answer is proven wrong, and you are guilty of using unsound logic.
>

>
Rebutting an incorrect paraphrase of my exact words
<is> the strawman deception.
>

>
But I rebuted your exact words.

 That statement is counter-factual.

No, your statement is just a blantent lie.
Where did you refute what I said, or are you claiming I didn't say anything?
You are just proving you are nothing but an out and out liar.

 I specifically refer to whether or not a specific C function
(source-code provided) reaches its own "return" instruction.

Right, and such behavior is only defined with the definition of every thing that function calls.

 This <is> the correct measure for the termination analysis
of C functions.

Right, but it included the ACTUAL behavior of the HHH that DDD calls.

 Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
Figure 5.3: Non-Terminating C Function

Right, which looks at code that doesn't actually return, because it gets stuck in an actual infinte loop.
Not that the analyzer can't emulate to the return instruction, but code that actually doesn't return.
Your problem is you have only shown that DDD won't return if HHH is defined to never aborts its emulation in this case. SInce it *IS* defined that way, you logic is built on a false premise and doesn't actually assert its conclusion,

 You try to get away with the pure bluster of declaring that
this C function is not even a C function.

Where did I say that.
The C function of the example is totally self-contained, and refers to nothing else, so can be analysize in isolation.
Your DDD refers to HHH, so its termination analysis needs to include the behavior of HHH.
If you try to use that form of analysis on DDD, you will find that DDD will terminate if and only if HHH aborts its emulation and returns.
THAT ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF NON-TERMINATION, as once the code of HHH is defined so that it does abort, then the analysis will say that DDD will be halting, thus HHH can not use that as an "excuse" to abort and claim non-halting.

 

The fact that they are equivical is your own fault, since the other meaning, the one you seem to want to use, is based on a category error, it can't be correct. (partial emulation do not have a non- terminating property)
>