Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of my
 paper
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 12:33:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:33:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77a46f28b4cad16507a67d9d8c01a608";
	logging-data="503139"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/eZR4NiKyS35ph9AqhnSNG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NwvYbBb5MectF8ZjjE61BsyAYpU=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241020-4, 10/20/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2641

This is the only new material that sums up the
essence of what a simulating termination analyzer is.

Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.

All of the follows is simply cut-and-paste from my paper
except that I added DDD(DDD) call in main().
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e

Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

Everything below is verbatim cut-and-paste from my above paper.

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD(DDD);
}

Every C programmer that knows that when HHH emulates the machine 
language of, Infinite_Recursion it must abort this emulation so that 
itself can terminate normally.

When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating 
termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject this input as non-halting 
by returning 0 to its caller.

We get the same repetitive pattern when DDD is correctly emulated by 
HHH. HHH emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to do this again.

Do the function calls from main() return to main() ?

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer