Re: Hypothetical possibilities

On 7/20/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2024 om 21:09 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
>
(a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
this is a design requirement.
>
(b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
aborts the simulation of its input or not.
>
(c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
never stop running.
>
This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must
abort the simulation of its input.

>
And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt of its own.

>
So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH
ever needs to abort the simulation of its input and HHH
will stop running?
>

 No, you try to get away with saying that a HHH that is coded to abort and halt, will never stop running, only because you are dreaming of *another* HHH that does not abort.
 

*You know that I didn't say anything like that*
Unless I refer to the infinite set of every possible
HHH my reviewers try to get away with saying that I am
referring to the wrong HHH.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
possibly reach its own return instruction.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer