Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/8/2025 10:54 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 6/8/2025 10:31 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*

Do not imply that I support your claims.

>
I am not implying anything. I am directly stating
that you have agreed that when DDD is correctly simulated
by HHH that it cannot possibly reach its own simulated
"return" instruction and terminate normally.

 Endless recursion is endless recursion.  Correctly simulated endless
recursion is endless recursion.

Great. No one else besides you and I agree that DDD
correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*

 This has no useful or interesting
consequences.  Do you agree?
 

It is very useful because it is isomorphic to this:
(The standard Halting Problem counter-example input)
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer