Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals

On 3/5/25 12:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/3/25 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

>
*Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*

>
No, it proves that the HHH that rejects the input, didn't do a correct simulation, and thus was looking at the wrong input, because you don't understand what a program is.
>
DD only is non-halting if *THE* HHH (and there is only one at any time) never aborts. SInce HHH musts abort its emulation to "reject" the input, it proves it didn't do the needed correct emulation, and you are shown to be just a blantant liar.
>

>

>
And the HHH that correctly emulated DD, can't be a decider and answer.
>
Also. "the HHH", defined in your Halt7.c doesn't do that,

>
The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
own "ret" instruction.
>
Failing to provide the above proves that you are clueless
about this code.
>
>

Nope, I have shown why your logic is wrong,

>
If that was true you could show this with
something besides rhetoric and double-talk.
>

>
That you call all I say as just rhetoric just shows how stupid you are.
>

>
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
AND YOU CAN'T SHOW OTHERWISE
>

>
Right, so any HHH that correctly emulated the input, can't return to its caller, or it would have returned to DD.
>

 That is not yet quite correct and the code
(that you cannot understand) proves otherwise.
 

What is wrong with it?
Yoy yourself have proved that ANY HHH that does a correct emulation of DD, will get stuck in the infinite loop of emulating the DD based on it.
Since there is only one HHH in existance at a time in a given memory location if your HHH(DD) returns, it could not have done a correct emulation.
Thus, your claim that it did is just a known lie.
That you don't understand that basic logic proves your stupidity.
Of course, the problem is you started on a strawman that is just illogically formed and you whole problem is filled with errors, so nothing in it will actually make sense.
Sorry, you are just proving how utterly ignorant you are of the field you are talking, making errors on basic foundational terms, because you are just too stupid to see your errors.