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

On 10/13/24 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/13/2024 1:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

 Finally you said something that is correct.

So, the Input representing "DDD" must include the code of HHH.
It doesn't (per your arguement) so the input is just invalid.

 

>
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.
>

 Yes you are correct again.

So, since HHH(DDD) returns 0, then that *IS* the behavior that HHH needs to presume (or deduce) when emulating that instuction.

 

>
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.
>

  The point here is that termination analysis does
not only refer to complete programs as you said

But a subroutine, with all the subroutines it uses *IS* a "complete program" per the definitions.

  >>>>> No, since termination is a property of the PROGRAM
 it also applies to C functions proving that you were
wrong about this.
 

But only when included *ALL* the code called by it.
You are just proving that you are either totally ignorant of what you are talking about, or just trying to be dishonest, but so stupid your errors are in plain sight.
Sorry, that *IS* the facts, but you seem to be unable to undertstand them.