Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

On 7/13/24 4:15 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);
}
 Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
 

And, if this HHH does abort is simulation, then it doesn't NEED to be aborted as the DDD that it is simulating has been paired with that aborting HHH, so, if THIS input (still paired to that HHH that aborts) is given to a FULL simulator that doesn't abort, it will simulate DDD calling HHH(DDD), then that HHH simulating its input for a while, and then deciding to abort (since that is what you claimd that HHH did) and return to the DDD that is being simulated and that DDD will return,
Thus, the HHH that aborts doesn't need to abort because it was paired with an input that calls a copy of it that will do the same thing and when fully simulated will return.
Your problem is your program structure doesn't allow the operation you try to do of arguing about changing the base HHH, as that ILLEGALLY changes the input program.
For the first two inputs, we don't have that problem, as changing HHH doesn't change the code in the program of the input (or at least not in a way that affects its behavior, only unreferenced code in memory).
You just don't understand the rules of the system you are trying to work in so you make the rookie errors that a littile bit of study could have saved your DECADES of errors.
Sorry, you logic just is broken because you have brainwashed yourself to believe your lies, which is why your "defense" just keeps repeating the smme lies as you have nothing under them to go more basic on, as that will just reveal how badly you are just lyimg.