halting problem – Can anyone point out any error in the following conclusion?

Can anyone point out any error in the following conclusion?

The x86utm operating system was created so that the halting problem could be examined concretely in the high level language of C. x86utm UTM tape elements are 32-bit unsigned integers. H examines the behavior of the x86 emulation of its input. As soon as a non-halting behavior pattern is matched H aborts the simulation of its input and decides not halting.

int Simulate(u32 P, u32 I)
{
  ((void(*)(u32))P)(I);
  return 1; 
}

// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
void H_Hat(u32 P) 
{
  // Linz H as a simulating partial halt decider
  u32 Input_Halts = H(P, P);  
  if (Input_Halts) 
    HERE: goto HERE; 
} 

void H_Hat2(u32 P) 
{
  u32 Input_Halts = Simulate(P, P);  
  if (Input_Halts) 
    HERE: goto HERE; 
} 

int main()
{
  H_Hat2((u32)H_Hat2);  
  H_Hat((u32)H_Hat);  
}

Anyone that knows C programming very well will know that line 1 of main() won’t halt and line 2 of main() will only halt if simulating partial halt decider H() stops simulating H_Hat(). A simulating halt decider that never stops simulating its input is simply a simulator on this input.

When we know that the UTM simulation of TM Description P on input I would never halt we know that the execution of TM P(I) would never halt.

Conclusion: On this basis we know that any computation that must have its simulation aborted to prevent its otherwise infinite execution is correctly rejected as non-halting.

Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.