Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT

Op 17.jun.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott:

On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly
how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination
analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state they ignore this challenge.

>
It seems very difficult for you to read.
We clearly stated that the challenge is improper.

 Are you too stupid to understand that dogmatic
assertions that are utterly bereft of any supporting
reasoning DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS ???

No, you are too stupid to realise that challenging for a recipe to draw a square circle does not count as a proof that square circles exist.

 Claiming that I made a mistake with no ability to
show this mistake is DISHONEST.
 

Indeed, but irrelevant, because the prerequisite is false. When your errors have been proven it is DISHONEST to claim that they do not exist.
It seems impossible for you to read. We have presented many rebuttals, showing your errors, but you ignore them and just start again your claims.
Repeating claims without any evidence is not a proof, nor a rebuttal.
I see a very childish pattern in your behaviour. You close your eyes and pretend that thing you do not see do not exist.
1. Your HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation and you pretend that the end does not exist.
2. You ignore the errors in your claims presented to you, cut them from your citations and then pretend that these rebuttals do not exist.
For adults such childish behaviour would be called dishonest.
Don't you understand that dreams of infinite recursion do not count as rebuttals?
Dreams do not prove more than dogmatic assertions.
Try to think!