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

On 2/27/25 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

Nope. Just proves you are just a stupid pathological liar.
If HHH does a correct emulation, then it never answers and fails to be a termination analyzer.
If HHH does abort its emulation, then we can show that it will also return to DD and thus DD will ha]lt.
Only in your stupidity where HHH can be two different programs at the same time, doing to contradictory action can you "prove" your point.
This shows that you are just too stupid to know what you are doing,

 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.
 

No, it is just a fact that your idea that a partial emulation defines behavor is just stupid, or you are so stupid you think a program can be two different programs at the same time.
Sorry, your "logic" is just based on your assumption that the Truth Fairy can magically make your errors go away and let your lies become truth,
But all it does is prove that you are a pathological liar that is too stupid to understand what he says,