XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:   
   >>>> void DDD()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>> }   
   >>>>   
   >>>> int main()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>    DDD();   
   >>>> }   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt   
   >>>> this is a design requirement.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either   
   >>>> aborts the simulation of its input or not.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort   
   >>>> the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}   
   >>>> never stop running.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must   
   >>>> abort the simulation of its input.   
   >>>   
   >>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and   
   >>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt   
   >>> of its own.   
   >>   
   >> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH   
   >> ever needs to abort the simulation of its input and HHH   
   >> will stop running?   
   >>   
   >   
   > It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not need   
   > to.   
      
   No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly   
   exist aborts its simulation.   
      
   void DDD()   
   {   
      HHH(DDD);   
      return;   
   }   
      
   It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any   
   pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)