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

On 6/17/2025 4:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

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,

That alternative is that you are dishonest.
When you claim that I am wrong and have
no ability to show how and where I am wrong
this would seem to make you a liar.
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
simulated "return" statement final halt state.

because the prerequisite is false. When your errors have been proven it is DISHONEST to claim that they do not exist.
 

You have never actually addressed my actual claim
that only involves a simulated DDD reaching its
own simulated "return" instruction final halt state.
Changing the subject by the tiniest little nuance
is the strawman deception.

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.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself
simulating DDD then any first year CS student knows
that when each of the above are correctly simulated
by HHH that none of them ever stop running unless aborted.
That you don't understand this seems to prove that you
have less understanding than a first year CS student.

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!
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer