Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways

On 6/8/24 8:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 1:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 22:27:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/7/2024 4:02 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:09:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 15:18:21 +0000, olcott said:

>

All halt deciders are only allowed to report on the actual behavior of
their actual input.

 >

Required even! And if they simulate, that simulation must match the
behaviour.
>

>
The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly
be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language.
Some people here have that.

>
Not true. An expert of simulation and simulators need not know
anything about x86. If you cannot correct a false assumption
about simulations without expertise in the x86 programming language
then you cannot correct it with that expertise, either.

 Basically you are admitting that you don't have what it takes
and trying to incorrect get away with sating that it doesn't matter.
 People that know C have been able to understand this too.
For people that are stuck in rebuttal mode I must make it as
precise as arithmetic so rebuttal looks ridiculously foolish.
This did work on Richard. He went from denying what I said
with the strawman deception to saying that he never said it
was incorrect.
 On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
 >> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
 >> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
 >
 >
 > I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
 >
 I incorporate by reference
(a) The x86 language
(b) The notion of an x86 emulator
 (c) I provide this complete function

So?

 void DDD(int (*x)())
{
   HH(x, x);
}
 _DDD()
[00001de2] 55         push ebp
[00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH
[00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001df5] 5d         pop ebp
[00001df6] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
 Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
instruction.

Which just proves you don't understand what a proof is.

 To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
(perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
 

Which means you just proved that NO HH that meets your requirements can ever give an answer for this question.
You Claim this not to be true, so that just shows that your system is self-contradictory.
And the apparent issue is that you are changing your definition of "Correct Simulation" between the two.
Apparently quite intentionally, so it can be considered an act of deception, commonly called a LIE.