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

On 10/16/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/16/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/16/24 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/15/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
Not at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
A termination analyzer need not be a Turing computable function.

>
Strange, since any function that meets the requireemnt
>
the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential transparency),
>
Is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.
>
>

>
*According to the industry standard definitions that I stipulated*

>
You can't stipulate that something is a standard.
>

>
A c function terminates when it reaches its "return"
instruction. I stipulate this basic fact because you
disagree with basic facts. When it is stipulated then
your disagreement is necessarily incorrect.
>

>
We don't disagree with that,

 Good.
 Then when HHH correctly emulates N steps of DDD you might
also agree that this means that N steps of DDD were correctly
emulated by HHH.
 

Right, but just because N steps don't get to the return, doesn't mean that the input doesn't return.
*AND*
Since changing the code for HHH means that you get a different program/funcition DDD as far as behavior is concerned, you can't argue about the results of changing HHH to not abort saying anything about the behavior of the DDD that the original HHH was given, since the non-aborting one had a different input (or the input wasn't suitable for the problem).
Thus, your trying to change the criteria from the actual Behavior of the program/function described by the input to what the emulation by HHH does is invalid, as HHH doesn't do a emulation that qualifies, as it only did a partial emulaiton.
Thus, since the DDD that HHH was actually given will return, HHH can not be correct to say that its doesn't.
The statement that you are actually showing, and using equivocation to try to make look like the needed behavior, is that HHH shows that it did not emulate its input to a final state.