Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar

On 11/19/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/19/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/19/24 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/19/2024 5:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:21:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/18/2024 1:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 1:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 10:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 2:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>

Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a
"Program" is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.
>

YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.
A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT PROGRAM WHEN I
ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.
>

But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as
both of those are operations done on PROGRAMS.
>

No stupid I provided a published paper that includes the
termination analysis of C functions.

>
Look again at what they process. C functions that include all the
functions they call.
>

You stupidly claimed termination analysis is only done on
programs. I proved that you were stupidly wrong on pages 24-27 of
the PDF of this paper.
Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/ files/972440.pdf
>

The problem here is you are mixing language between domains.

>
I said the termination analysis applies to C functions you said that
it does not. No weasel words around it YOU WERE WRONG!
>

Termination analysis applies to FUNCTIONS, FULL FUNCTIONS, ones that
include everything that is part of them. Those things, in computation
theory, are called PROGRAMS.

>
The top of PDF page 24 are not programs defection for brains.
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
>

Those *ARE* "Computation Theory" Programs.
They are also  LEAF functions, unlike your DDD.
NOTHING in that paper (form what I can see) talks about handling non-
leaf-functions with including all the code in the routines it calls.
>

Since the halting problem is defined to have the input call its own
termination analyzer and the termination analyzer is itself required to
halt then any sequence of this input that would prevent it from halting
IS A NON-HALTING SEQUENCE THAT MUST BE ABORTED AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE.

What happens when we run HHH(HHH)?
>

>
The ONLY thing that it relevant is that DDD emulated by
HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language specifies
that HHH must emulate itself emulating DDD and

>
No, that is IRRELEVENT as it isn't a proper question to ask a decider.
>

 It has been the correct question to ask a simulating halt decider
for more than two years now. My treatment for cancer will be every
day for a year beginning next week.
 

Nope. IT may be what you WANT it to be, but you don't get to change the question.
It may be the correct quesiton for your POOP in PO-nonsense theory, but it isn't the correct question for a Halt Decider, and isn't even valid for a decider in computation theory.
The fact that you keep on trying to claim it just proves that you are just an ignorant idiot that turned himself into a pathological liar because of his reckless disregard to the truth.