DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- very stupid requirement

On 2/27/2025 1:42 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:34:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact
that HHH emulates this DD.

On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
You don't understand this simple entanglement.

Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the
one influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this
input.

No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls
that simulator.

In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers to get
stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.

I don't make the rules. You are the one constructing infinite recursion.
 

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
The C function, termination analyzer, software engineering
isomorphism to the Peter Linz computer science halting
problem proof is what makes the infinite recursion in both cases.
Page 3 versus page 5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D Your requirement that a simulating termination analyzer / halt decider
must get stuck in infinite recursion remains very stupid.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer