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

On 10/19/24 7:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/19/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/19/24 7:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/19/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-17 00:19:15 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
It is not a fact. It is a definition that excludes from the meaning
of "terminate" certain possibilities that could reasonably be called
"termination".
>

>
Halting in computer science corresponds maps to normal
termination in software engineering. For C functions
reaching the "return" instruction is the only kind of
normal termination.
>

>
Right, which only apply to the FINAL behavior of program/functions (the domain of discussion) whicn include all of the code that object uses.
>

 When I say that HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DDD
your only rebuttal is double-talk nonsense.
 

No, I just need to point out that your definition are incorrect in the context you use them in.
A "Correct Emulation" to determine final behavior must be complete.
HHH's emulation is not conplete, and thus does not show final behavior,
Thus, either you are lying that your meaning of "correct emulation" CAN be used to talk about final behavior, because you are using some other definition, or that your HHH doesn't do a correct emulation.
When the equivocation is pointed out, you have just ducked and dodge, showing that you understand you equivocation, but are trying to avoid dealing with it as it kills your arguement.
S0rry, you are just proving you are nothing but a pathological lying idiot.