No, and ...

No it was not! It was suggested that you *could* create a program that would not halt, and that such a program was not an algorithm, if you go by that definition. It was clearly discussing a notion of computational *theory*. You completely sidetracked that discussion for your own banal point, for what purpose I don't know.

/*
* The following is *not* an executing program, it is a
* text representation of an endless loop. It represents
* a computation that doesn't halt, and could be turned
* into a program that is bounded by the computational
* constraints of the universe.
*
* Is it an "algorithm?" bojan says yes, because it can be
* converted into an execution that *must* 'halt' by the
* constraints of physics.
* I say an algorithm is a CONCEPT, and that conceptually,
* this represents a non-halting computation. It's not
* just a "program" executing on a specific computing device.
*/
int main() {for(;;);}

The legal/patent aspect of all this is that the law cares about definitions (whether they intersect with reality or not), and so an unfortunate definition could have bad consequences, particularly in the patent realm that can intertwine with the realm of concepts, and well as physical realities.