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

Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:34 schreef olcott:

On 3/7/2025 9:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mrt.2025 om 15:58 schreef olcott:

On 3/7/2025 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-06 20:11:34 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/6/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-04 14:26:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/4/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-04 03:07:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.
>
The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
own "ret" instruction.

>
The question whether DD emulated by HHH exists is too uninteresting that
it would need a rebuttal, and so is the question that does it reach its
"ret" instruction if it exsists.
>

>
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*

>
As "DD correctly emulated by HHH" does not exist

>
*No one has made any attempt to show that*

>
Maybe not. Perhaps every demonstration of that was just a byproduct of
some other attempt. Anyway, HHH does not emulate DD correctly to the end.
>

>
Simulating termination analyzer HHH simulates its input DD until HHH correctly determines that DD cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally.

Indeed, HHH reports that it cannot possibly perform a complete (correct) simulation of itself.
This is the only possible correct interpretation of the result of HHH.
Any other interpretation has no grounds.

>
No matter how many times you stupidly ignore the verified
fact that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation this does
not change the fact that DD cannot possibly reach its own
"ret" instruction because it calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>

Why do you ignore the fact that that we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction after a finite recursion?
Agreeing is not a rebuttal.
We agree that HHH correctly reports that it cannot possibly reach the 'ret' instruction and that it aborted the simulation before the simulation has been completed correctly.