Re: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state

On 10/05/2025 02:43, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 02:26, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
Try to show how DDD emulated by HHH according to the
rules of the x86 language reaches its own "ret"
instruction final halt state.

>
First, try to find a way to prove that DDD is correctly emulated by HHH. Proof by assertion will not do.
>

 *The burden of proof is on you*

*guffaw*
You have claimed, have you not, that you have found a major flaw in Peter Linz's proof of the Halting Problem?
The ball is very firmly in your court.

You claim  that I made a mistake yet have no actual
evidence of any actual mistake.

Your halt7.c code has a syntax error. All on its own that's enough to prove that you made a mistake.

That you think that emulating one instruction correctly
is emulating zero instructions correctly seems dishonest.

I haven't said so, but I note that you still haven't identified the instruction you believe to have been emulated correctly. I wonder why.

That you cannot show one mistake proves that you know
of no mistake.

A syntax error is not just a mistake, but a fatal mistake. A C compiler is *required* to diagnose the code and has the licence not to yield a translation. Until you clean up your code, you don't have a program.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within