Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules

On 4/26/2025 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:

On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:

On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>
Mathematical induction proves that DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own final state in an infinite number of steps and it does
this with one recursive emulation.
There is a repeating pattern that every C programmer can see.

>

Like Fred wrote months ago, that has nothing to do with the contradictory
part of DD,

>
Sure it does. The contradictory part of DD has always
been unreachable thus only a ruse.
>

only with it being simulated by the same simulator it calls.

>
That <is> the Halting Problem counter-example input.
>

The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by HHH.
>

>
HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of
the x86 language.

HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely aborting the halting program.

>
Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules
of the x86 language yet no one can point out
which rules are violated

>
>
It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86 language to abort a halting function.

 You remains stupidly wrong about this because
you refuse to show what step of DD is not emulated
by HHH according to the finite string transformation
rules specified by the x86 language.
 _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]
 You refuse to show the incorrect step because you
know that you are clueless about the x86 language
and provide your "rebuttal" entirely on the basis
of pure bluster. In other words pure Troll behavior
on your part.