Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory

On 6/28/2025 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 10:21 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/28/2025 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 10:14 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/28/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 14:36 -0500, olcott wrote:

I am only here for the validation of the behavior
of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.

>
The definition of HHH is missing.

>
The definition is specified in this part that you
dishonestly erased:
>
On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
 > Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
 > it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
 > HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
 > and returns 0.
>

>
The dishonest one here is YOU, as it was not wij who snipped the below in his reply but YOU:
>

>
I stop at the first counter-factual mistake so I stop here.
Everything else is ignored.
>

>
In other words, you INTENTIONALLY don't read things that prove you wrong.
>

 On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:
 >
 > The definition of HHH is missing.
 On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
 > Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
 > it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
 > HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
 > and returns 0.
 >
 It is a verified fact that the definition of HHH was
provided thus the claim that it was not provided is
counter factual.

No, you didn't give a definition of HHH, just gave a vauge incomplete description of what you think it does.
What is is a verified fact that you openly and blatantly lied about wij erasing your description when it was in fact you yourself that did it.
All you are doing is showing the depths of your dishonesty.

 Your mere rhetoric to the contrary does not actually change
these verified facts. Are you able to stick with correct
reasoning or is mere rhetoric all that you have?
>

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.  And as you yourself self:
 On 5/25/2025 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 > You Are the epitome of bad faith and dishonesty.
 > This may cost you your actual soul: Revelations 21:8.
 

I have included proof that the people on comp.theory
lied about this at the bottom.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
int main()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    DDD();
}
>
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern.

>
HHH(DDD) will run in infinite loop, which conforms to Halting Problem proof.
>

When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.

>
And here is the part that you dishonestly said was erased when in fact it was not.
>
This proves that it is YOU who are lying and will say anything to push your agenda.
>

 Your failure to reply to the above, and in fact your dishonest erasing of it constitutes your admission of lying to push your agenda.
 

>
This looks like a problem specification, but you said "Halting Problem" is
incorrect. Peter Olcott's Own Problem is never clear.