Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

On 7/1/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}
 Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
so that itself can terminate normally.

Right.

 When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject these inputs as
non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.

But only when you can actually PROVE that the full emulation of the program would be non-halting.

 Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
that their finite string input specifies thus HHH must report
that DDD correctly emulated by HHH remains stuck in recursive
simulation.

But if DDD WAS stuck in infinte recursion, so must be HHH, so it isn't a decider.
HHH can't have different behavior when emulated by HHH then when it is actually run.
The problem is that "Emulated by the Decider" is NOT a valid criteria for the behavior of the input, since it isn't a function of just the input.
The "Behavior of the input" will be the behavior of the program the input represents when it is run. The fact that the decider can't figure it out, isn't a problem, it just shows that this question on behavior isn't computable, which is perfectly fine.

 Everyone else seems to be flat out dishonest or totally ignorant.
At least one of my reviewers does not seem to understand that
infinite recursion does not halt.
 

Nope, just one person, YOU. Your claims are FULL OF LIES and inconsistant definitions, and you re just to ignorant and stupid to understand that.
You don't understand the fundamental definitions of the field, because it seems, you intentionaally refuse to study it. That doesn't make your ERRORS innocent mistakes, but just a calculate fabrication.