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

On 10/13/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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 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.

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 it is not it has no main().

 >>>>> 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.