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

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. 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)

>
*Fully operational code is here*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c https:// github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>

>
Which shows that all those DDD do terminate.
>
It also proves you have been lying that your decider is a pure function and thus nothing you say has any validity.