OLCOTT ADMITS TO LYING FOR YEARS

On 7/15/24 3:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2024 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.jul.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:

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
>

>
It seems that you do not understand x86 language. The input is not a string of bytes, but an address (00002163). This points to the starting of the code of DDD. But a simulation needs a program, not a function calling undefined other functions. Therefore, all functions called by DDD (such as HHH) are included in the code to simulate.

 *The input is the machine address of this finite*
*string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3*

Which means it is not a program and you have been lying for years that your inputs were equivalents of the programs in the proofs.

 You are talking about the behavior specified by that finite
string. When you say that a finite string *is not* a finite
string you are disagreeing with the law of identity.

Which, not being a program, doesn't have behavior, and thus your whole argument is just a LIE>
HHH can NOT "correctly emulate" the incorrect program per the x86 specification, as the specification doesn't define (in the way you are claiming) what that program does.
I suppose the one option, if you consider that byte string as the only memory available is that it halts on an system trap for accessing non-existant memory so your HHH is STILL wrong for considering that to be the total input.

 Every rebuttal to my work disagrees with one tautology of another.
It is the fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation
that makes it impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to halt.

No, we disagree with your LIES.

 Everyone disagrees with this entirely on the basis of the strawman
deception (damned lie) that some other DDD somewhere else has
different behavior.
 

No, THAT DDD, when expanded to include the HHH so it IS a program, will halts since your HHH is defined to abort and return.
YOU are the one trying to LIE by talking about the OTHER DDD, based on the OTHER HHH that doesn't abort.
YOU LIE, YOU PROJECT YOUR LIES, just like Trump.