Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN --- Saving Democracy

On 2/22/2025 3:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 2:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/22/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:

 01 int F(int i)
02 {
03   if (i > 10)
04     return 0;
05   else
06     return F(i+1);
07 }
08
09 int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
10 {
11   return F(0);
12 }
13
14 int main()
15 {
16   F((int)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
17   return 0;
18 }
 

>
So if the address of no_numbers_greater_than_10 is greater than 10 then 0 is returned right away, otherwise as most 10 recursive calls will be made before the condition is matched and 0 is returned.
>
This doesn't change the fact that no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly
simulated by F cannot possibly return so F(no_numbers_greater_than_10)
is correct to report non-halting, which means that there is no natural
number greater than 10.
>
Agreed?

 I think that you will find more bugs when you try to
provide the line number by line number execution trace.
 #1 bug F never simulates anything.
 

It is a verified fact that no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly
simulated by F cannot possibly return so F(no_numbers_greater_than_10)
is correct to report non-halting.  This answer is correct even if F gets it by a wild guess, as you have previously stated.
You stated that HHH is correct to report DD as non-halting because replacing the code of HHH by an unconditional simulator causes DD to not halt.
Similarly, F is correct to report no_numbers_greater_than_10 as non-halting because replacing the code of F by an unconditional simulator causes no_numbers_greater_than_10 to not halt.
Agreed?