Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/10/25 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/9/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>

>
>
So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior?
>
Where do you get that LIE from?
>

>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
>
I am no so stupid that I require a complete
simulation of a non-terminating input.

>
Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way.
>

 It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH
to correctly recognize a non-halting behavior pattern.
Unless you are very good at software engineering you
won't be able to begin to understand all of the
non-halting behavior patterns. Mike used the simplest
one: infinite loop.
 

WHich is a LIE, since DDD is halting,
Of course, this is only after we fix the first lie that we can even ask the question, and need to include all the code of the PROGRAM HHH into DDD so it CAN be simulated, and fix HHH to be the code that you have it have.
Since "Halting" is a property of THE PROGRAM, and its direct execution, we show, and you have admitted, that DDD is halting,
Your claim of "different behavior" is just a lie, that you try to justify by showing INCORRECT SIMULATIONS, just showing that not only are you a liar, but are stupid, not knowing the x86 language as you claim you do.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are just too ignorant to see your problems.