Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?

On 8/2/24 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 

Right, but the only HHH that correctly simulates is the one that never aborts, and thus fails to be a decider, and that isn't the HHH that you actually have shown the code for, or claim to be right.
Your HHH that does abort, doesn't do a correct simulation and get the wrong answer.
Note, the simulation of the call to HHH MUST be simulated by going into HHH and seeing what it does, something NONE of your traces generated by HHH have been shown to do.
And, an aborted simulation is NEVER correct, unless the point that it aborted was a point in the code that the code actually stops running at, which will be the finial return from DDD. The ACTUAL correct simulation of ANY DDD that calls an HHH that answers will also reach that final state, thus no HHH is correct to say the DDD that calls it is non-halting.
The HHH that aborts is simulation of the DDD above that calls itself is just incorrect, as it has just proved that it isn't the HHH that we agreed makes a non-halting input.
You are just proving your utter stupidity and that you are just an ignorant pathological liar that intentionally conflates the two versions of HHH.
Sorry, your reputation is just DEAD because YOU have killed by by telling all your lies, proving that you logic is worthless and that you are just ignorant.
That is just the facts.