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

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.
You just don't seem to understand that implication. Termination is about "Computations" (more informally called Programs), and all computations are the equivalent of a Turing Machine.

 

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

Because emulators (correctly) don't abort, so the emulated emulator isn't
terminating.
>

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