Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.

On 7/10/24 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2024 om 17:03 schreef olcott:

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

>
Unneeded complexity. It is equivalent to:
>
        int main()
        {
          return HHH(main);
        }
>

  Every time any HHH correctly emulates DDD it calls the
x86utm operating system to create a separate process
context with its own memory virtual registers and stack,
thus each recursively emulated DDD is a different instance.
 The instance of main() can't possibly halt HHH correctly
aborts and rejects as non-halting. The entirely different
instance of main() that calls HHH only halts because HHH
was correct to abort its simulated instance.
 

But ALL instances of the smsame program must behavir the same, or you are proving that your HHH isn't actualy a pure function, or doesn't correct emulate its input.
So, it CAN'T say that its emulated version is correct determined to not return without admiting that something about it make it different when emulated which means either it fails to be pure, or fails to correctly emulate itself.
So, you just blew up your argument in a great big LIE.