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

On 6/10/2025 6:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-09 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/9/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-09 02:50:59 +0000, olcott said:
 

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*

 Being called a "liar" by a liar does not damn.
 As is clear from the above C code, DDD() specifies what HHH specifies
for the case it is called with DDD as the only argument. In particular,
if HHH specifies a recursive for that case then so does DDD. And if
HHH specifies a recursive simulation that can never reach its final
halt state then so does DDD. And if HHH specifies a non-halting
behaviour so does DDD. Etc.

 That is not quite the way that it actually works.

 Yes it is. If it were not you would have pointed where there is an
error.

 I only point out the first error and the skip the rest of the post.
I usually have to point out the same error dozens of times before
anyone notices that I said anything at all. That is why I skip the
rest of the post after the first error.