What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of my paper

This is the only new material that sums up the
essence of what a simulating termination analyzer is.
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
All of the follows is simply cut-and-paste from my paper
except that I added DDD(DDD) call in main().
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
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
Everything below is verbatim cut-and-paste from my above paper.
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD(DDD);
}
Every C programmer that knows that when HHH emulates the machine language of, Infinite_Recursion it must abort this emulation so that itself can terminate normally.
When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject this input as non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
We get the same repetitive pattern when DDD is correctly emulated by HHH. HHH emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to do this again.
Do the function calls from main() return to main() ?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer