Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN

On 2/22/25 1:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 10:49 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:06:08 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:

>

How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that
basically toggles termination?

Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input could
possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.

Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run
forever.

This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.

It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself
so we can say that the program could run forever.

OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point. Unless the C
function HHH aborts its simulation of the C function DD this DD C
function DOES NOT TERMINATE.

If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/
Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of
DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is
false.

I am not talking about one statement.

The statement "unless HHH aborts..." is void, because HH does abort.
>

 EVERYTHING ELSE IS 100% IRRELEVANT UNTIL WE HAVE
MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON THIS POINT
 DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally
by reaching its own “return” instruction.
 

You can't try to imagine what happens if something you defined to work one way would work another.
That is just saying that you think LIES are acceptable, which just proves that you are just a pathological liar.