Re: Flibble’s Leap: Why Behavioral Divergence Implies a Type Distinction in the Halting Problem

On 5/11/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/11/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 9:42 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/11/2025 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 9:34 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/11/2025 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 9:23 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/05/2025 03:05, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 8:34 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/05/2025 02:12, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

No one here is using any actual reasoning
in their rebuttals of my work.

>
I have already shown several places where your 'work' violates the rules of its implementation's language standard,

>
My compiler disagrees so I can't fix that.

>
C compilers are obliged to diagnose syntax errors. If they don't, they're not-quite-C compilers. You need to decide whether you're writing in C or whether you're not.
>

>
>
_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]
>
When testing the proof-of-concept not one line
of my code is relevant. The only thing that needs
be determined is the behavior of DDD under some
HHH

>
Category error.  Algorithm DDD isn't fully defined until algorithm HHH is fully defined.
>
So yes the code is relevant.

>
Algorithm HHH is fully defined as an x86 emulator
that emulates one or more steps of DDD according
to the rules of the x86 language.

>
Which means "some HHH" is a category error.  There is only one algorithm HHH and one algorithm DDD.
>

>
*You absolutely refuse to get the gist of anything*
>
There cannot possibly exist an x86 emulator at machine
address 000015d2 that emulates one or more instructions
of DDD

>
Changing the input is not allowed.

 I am talking about every element of an infinite set you nitwit.