OLCOTT ADMITS TO LYING

On 7/15/24 8:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
>
Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
>

>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
The input *is* the machine address of this finite
string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
>

>
Nope, the "input" needs to define everything that varies from one question to another,

 Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
 The actual finite string of DDD correctly emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language does map to the behavior that
DDD specifies and does not map to the behavior that you falsely assume.
 

Your limited string can NOT be correctly emulated as it isn't a complete progrqm.
If that is your basis of your claim, then you are just admitting that you have been lying for years that your inputs were supposedly equivalents to the machines being decided in the proofs, and thys NOTHING you have said has any worth.
Sorry, you can't just break the rules like that.