Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work?

On 6/18/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/18/2025 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/18/25 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/18/2025 5:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jun.2025 om 03:54 schreef olcott:

On 6/17/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   return;
}
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
>
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.

>
WHich means that the code for HHH is part of the input, and thus there is just ONE HHH in existance at this time.
>
Since that code aborts its simulation to return the answer that you claim, you are just lying that it did a correct simulation (which in this context means complete)
>

>
*none of them ever stop running unless aborted*

>
All of them do abort and their simulation does not need an abort.
>

>
*It is not given that any of them abort*
>

>
>
>
But it either does or it doesn't, and different HHHs give different DDD so you can't compare their behavior.
>

 My claim is that DDD correctly simulated by any
termination analyzer HHH that can possibly exist
will never stop running unless aborted.
*No one has ever been able to refute this*
 

But the only HHH that DOES simulate any part of THIS DDD, is THIS HHH, and if it aborts to answer, it doesn't correctly simulate this input, so you LIE that it does.
If this HHH DOES correct simulate this DDD, then it can't abort, and thus doesn't give the answer.
The problem is you logic just LIES about what HHH and DDD are, because they CAN NOT be the programs of the proof and do what you claim, as you claim can only work if they are not programs,
Thus, all you are doing is proving that you are just a liar, and just don't know what you are talking about.
So, WHICH lie are you going to admit to, our, are you just admitting that you logic is based on lying?
Sorry, those are the only options you have.
SInce only ONE HHH simulates the DDD that THIS HHH is simulating (since you have admitted that the code for this HHH is in the memory that this HHH is seeing when it simulates this DDD, and thus that is part of the input).
Either this HHH:
1) Correctly Simulates the input as you claim asserts, at which point it CAN'T abort or you are admitting to ly9ing about it "correctly simulating" the input. And thus it just never returns an answer, or
2) IT does abort its simulation, and thus you LIE that some HHH correctly simulated it, since it doesn't, and no other HHH simulates this exact input, or
3) you are just admitting that yoru logic system thinks that DIFFERENT programs are the same, and thus based on LYING.
So, which lie are you admitting to, or by your silence admit that you do all of them (since you keep on changing your story, a common trait of liars).