Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict correctly is to say Halting,

On 7/31/24 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/31/2024 10:08 PM, wij wrote:

On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 18:50 -0500, olcott wrote:

>
It is not supposed to be a general solution to the halting problem.
it only shows how the "impossible" input is correctly determined
to be non halting.
>

>
But how do you determine it is non-halting?
>
As I know you are even unable to define what 'halt' mean !!!
>

I have done this thousands of times and after someone
has read these thousands of times they say that I never
said it once.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 If DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its return instruction then it never halts.
 

But only *IF*  HHH *DOES* correctly emulate its input, which means it can't abort its emulation, which means it isn't a decider.
since HHH is part of the input DDD, or you are just admitting you have been lying for years about working in computation theory, changing it, gives you a new DDD, with possibly different behavior. So the DDD which calls an HHH that DOES abort might be halting even though the DDD that calls an HHH that doesn't abort is non-halting, and in fact is.
You are just proving you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot that reckless disregards the truth to promote your lies, like like the election deniers and climate change deniers, so you can't be fighting them since you are supporting them.