Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction

On 8/4/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly
emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction.

>
No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely without aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that DDD will be non-halting.
>

>
See there?
>
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
C expert knows this.

>
But that only apply to the PROGRAM DDD built from an HHH that never aborts.
>

 No it does not and every C expert knows that it does not.
 

Really> You have a source for that?
Or is this just another of your "Digonalization" logic claims that you retracted.
Claims that "every x knows" are just a fallacy, and you should know it, but are, of course, just to dumb to understand.
Here the problem is you just lie about what "Correctly Emulated" means for determining the behavior of a program.
Sorry, you are just proving you are a stupid pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot with a reckless disregrad for the truth because you beleive your own lies to the point that you don't even look at the facts.