Re: Hypothetical possibilities

On 7/20/24 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 int main()
{
   DDD();
}
 (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
this is a design requirement.

I don't know where you got the false idea that "Termination Analyzers" were "Partial Halt Deciders", then most certainly are not.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis for a description, they deal with the related problem of determining if the input program will halt for *ALL* inputs, not just a given one.
Yes, in computer science, where the building of partial Termination Analyzers is an ongoing project, they often just drop the assumed partial as everyone know the general problem is not universally solvable.
Also, the answer must be correct,
and the input must be a PROGRAM, which mean it includes ALL its code that it uses, so for DDD, include the code for HHH.

 (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
aborts the simulation of its input or not.
 (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
never stop running.

But that is a DIFFERENT DDD then the one given to the HHH that aborted it emulation, and thus your logic is based on LYING.
We can given the input it the aborting HHH to another emulator which doesn't abort, and as long as we don't change the input, and thus that DDD calls that same HHH that aborts, we see that HHH was incorrect in its need to abort THIS input.

 This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must
abort the simulation of its input.
 

Right, and shows that the problem can not be solved (at least not with this method). Not that a wrong answer is correct.
The Flibble varient does handle this input, so it just shows that your program isn't good enough, but a better one does exist.
You are just proving that you think lying is ok, and thus agree with the Election and Climate Change deniers.
Sorry, but I can't let you get away with that.