Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? (V2)

On 6/20/25 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   return;
}
 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 int Sipser_D()
{
   if (HHH(Sipser_D) == 1)
     return 0;
   return 1;
}
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 My claim is that each of the above functions correctly
simulated by any termination analyzer HHH that can possibly
exist will never stop running unless aborted by HHH.

The problem is that NO "Simulating Halt Decider" HHH, can correctly simulte ANY of those inputs.
For the first two, it is possible for a smart enough Simulation Halt Decider to determine that the correct simulation of the input will not halt, no matter what HHH actually does, since it doesn't depend on the decider.
For the last 3, it can not prove that they will not halt, as, in fact, the correct simulation of all those inputs *WILL* halt if HHH is actually a decider that returns 0 for the call to HHH with themselves.
Since you can't actually prove a lie (even though it seems you logic think you can) your SHD is just shown to be incorrect.

 *No one has ever provided a correct rebuttal to that*
*In the several years that it has been reviewed*
 

Because your claim is just based on assuming something that isn't true.
NONE of your "Simulating Halt Deciders" can be both a correct simulator for any of these inputs, and also be a decider.
All you are doing is showing that you "logic" is built on lies and false premises.
Please try to show the claimed SHD that actually correctly simulates ANY of these inputs and returns a result.
Since the last 3 depend on the machine that they call, and for the "proof" that is the decider, you need to look at the correct simulation of THAT case, not when tnhey call some other machine.
Remember, "Correct Simulation" includes not stopping until having reached a final state, as part of EVERY instruction simulated is the part that says, and then execute the next instuction.
Failure to follow that just makes the simulation incorrect by being only partial, after all, Truth is only the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH.
Thus, all you have done is proved that you don't know what you are talking about, and your "logic" system depends on the existance of the "Truth Fairy" that can make inpossible statements act like they are true.