Re: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth

On 8/17/24 8:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 7:29 AM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>

 Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
 

And here you admit to your scam.
You call HHH an "emulator" in describeing DDD, but it is a termination Analyzer when it is ruhn.
If you made that statement in a court of law you would be found guilt of PERJERY as your first statement was a LIE by not being the WHOLE TRUTH.
Calling a program that CONDITIONALLY emulates (as in it can decide to stop) an emulator is just a lie of omission, which is a LIE.
So Sorry, but you are just proving your deceitfulness and stupidity
You article begins with LIES, like that HHH when simulating DDD must *IGNORE* the behavior of the HHH that it sees.
That is a TOTAL LIE, HHH absolutely must CONSIDER the behavior of ALL of the input it is given, which includes the HHH that it sees in DDD.
You are just proving your total ignorance of the field.