Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF

On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/25/25 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/25/25 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
proof or pointer to proof below.
>

>
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
>
The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
own "return" instruction.
>
That this may be beyond your technical skill level.
is less than no rebuttal at all.
>
Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
>

>
Since it isn't part of the problem, why is that?
>

>
Requiring main() makes it dead obvious when anyone
is trying to get away with the strawman deception.
You keep trying to get away with changing the subject
away from DD emulated by HHH.
>

 SL, you admit that everything you have said is a lie.
 Where is "main" mentioned in the "Halting Problem"
 

Nowhere, so your requirement for main is just your strawman,
 What about the program:
 int main() {
    HHH(DD);
    DD();
}
 That program proves that DD as a program will return.
 If you say that changes the behavior of DD, then you need to show where you are getting your definitions, as that is just a lie.
 Sorry to be so blunt, but you are just proving how stupid you are, and how everything you have done is just a FRAUD.

Your ADD seems to make you non-functional.
You can't seem to keep track of a single point
from one reply to the next.
I am talking about simulating termination analyzer HHH
and the finite string pointer to the x86 machine code of DD.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer