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

On 5/9/25 9:43 PM, 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*
You claim  that I made a mistake yet have no actual
evidence of any actual mistake.

No, the burden of proof is on YOU that is making the claim.
Errors in your logic have been pointed out, that you are effectively accepting by ignori9ng.

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

But "emulating 1 instruction correctly" is not emulating the input correctly.

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

No, the mistakes have been pointed out, your inability to refute those errors, and just repeat your errors and claim you don't need to prove your claims just shows that you know your claims are just invalid.
The "accepted truth" is the accepted proof of the Turing's Halting Theorem, which has been well scrutinized and accepted as valid.
That you claim to have a counter needs to be proven by YOU.
You just don't understand the rules of logic.
We have no oblogatyion to prove your strawman statement, you need to prove that it is a valid criteria.
remember, the DEFINTION of the problem is that the decider must report on the direct exectuion of the program represeted by the input.
If you think that is an invalid question, you need to prove that assertion, using the definitions of the system, something you have shown you don't understand since you make so many rookie errors (like thinking you can use non-leaf C functions as replacement for programs)