Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? ---Truth Maker Maximalism FULL_TRACE

On 7/11/2025 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2025 om 16:30 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2025 6:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jul.2025 om 14:54 schreef olcott:>>

One of these "errors" was that HHH cannot simulate itself at all.

>
As usual you twist the words of your reviewers.
The claim was that no HHH can simulate itself correctly *up to the end*.
>

https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
Is the full execution trace of
>
executed HHH simulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls emulated emulated HHH(DDD)

>
And it also proves my claim that HHH did not simulate itself correctly *up to the end*.
>

>
Exactly what is your professional programming experience?
I have 20 years in C++ and became a professional programmer
in 1986.
>

 Irrelevant, even when it is more than your experience.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
Anyone that cannot see that DDD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
(a) Has woefully deficient knowledge
(b) Is a liar.

Even a proof of a first year student can be a correct proof.
Apparently you ran out of counter arguments and try the authority card.

I want to see if you have the capacity to understand.
COBOL experience counts as zero programming experience
relative to anything about recursion.

So, we see that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end.

Because DDD unconditionally calls HHH(DDD).
Do you know what unconditionally means?

This failure of HHH is

entirely your own misconception.

an important fact in your code, because it shows that simulation is not the right tool for all inputs.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer