Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work?

On 6/18/25 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/18/2025 1:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:53:07 -0500, olcott wrote:
>

On 6/18/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/25 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
    Infinite_Recursion();
    return;
}
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
    HERE: goto HERE; return;
}
>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD
then any first year CS student knows that when each of the above are
correctly simulated by HHH that none of them ever stop running
unless aborted.

>
WHich means that the code for HHH is part of the input, and thus
there is just ONE HHH in existance at this time.
>
Since that code aborts its simulation to return the answer that you
claim, you are just lying that it did a correct simulation (which in
this context means complete)
>
>

*none of them ever stop running unless aborted* *none of them ever
stop running unless aborted* *none of them ever stop running unless
aborted*
>
Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
>
>
>

How about the fact that if they abort, they never did a correct
simulation,

>
*You are not addressing THE EXACT POINT*
>
*When HHH never aborts any of the above functions then*
(a) None of the functions ever stops running.
(b) Each of the above functions stops running anyway.

>
You need to be clear that you are not making a claim about general
undecidability but a claim about the SPECIFIC CASE of pathological self
reference present in the classic Halting Problem definition .. the trolls
here (especially Damon and Mikko) like to ignore that you are doing that.
>
/Flibble

 Yes that is what I am doing here.
If my reviewers would not dishonestly change the
subject as the basis of their rebuttal they would
know that I am correct.
 

But your "LOGIC" is based on the LIE that you are actually working with PROGRAMS, as required by the proof.
Once you force HHH to be a defined program, ALL your logic falls apart, as it becomes clear that your "DDD" isn't just one input. but an different input for each HHH, and thus your non HHH can simulate to the end is just an unsound arguement. Its invalid anyway, but you can make it not so clear with your obfuscation.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity