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

On 5/11/25 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 according to the rules of the x86 language such
that the correctly emulated DDD reaches its own "ret"
instruction final halt state.
 

So?
Why does there need to be?
It would only need to be there if you stipulated that you HHH *WAS* a correct emulator, but then, as you have proved, it doesn't return an answer and thus is not a decider.
Your problem is you seem to not understand that the question put to H is an OBJECTIVE question, not based on what "H sees" but about what is just true, and that means just by SOME correct emulator (which will do the same as direct execution).
You are showing that you just fundamentally don't understand the meaning of TRUTH, and think it ok to just lie about things.
You also show you don't understand the basic rules of computation theory, and think it ok to just make up your own ideas, which become lles when you ignore the instruction that others have given,
IT just shows that you seem to be incapbable of actually following the rules of systems, because you are just naturally rebelious, which is what is going to put you into that lake of fire.