Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/18/25 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/18/25 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
Right, but not necessarily what the meaning of the behavior of the input specifies.
>

>
You just keep flat out lying about this.
>
_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]
>
The meaning of the behavior that DDD emulated by
HHH specifies is to keep calling HHH(DDD) in
recursive emulation never ever reaching its
own "ret" instruction, thus never halting.
>

>
Where do you get your definition of the behavior of the input.
>

 DDD emulated by HHH according to the rules
of the x86 language JACKASS !!!
   

And how do you emulate the call HHH instruction using just the input?
If you include the contents of the global memory it references, that becomes part of the input state of the input, and thus can't be changed, and thus WILL BE the code of the HHH that aborts and returns, as that is teh context in question, what is the correct simulaton of the DDD that the HHH that gives the claimed right answer.
You are just showing that you don't understand the basic meanings of the words you use, and have redefined things to support your equivocation, which just makes everything you say a lie.
It is clear you don't understand what a "Program" is in this context, and when a program is required, and that cause you to make fundamental and stupid errors that you need to hide with lies.
You have admitted that much, as you have admitted that you don't treat your HHH and DDD as "Programs", just C (non-leaf) functions, while the principles you try to apply are defined to work on PROGRAMS.
You seem to think that all C functions can be used like programs, but that comes from you funny mental confusion over what those are, and the fact that in general writing, people are not utter precises, as that is the nature of Natural Language, so you need to know WHICH meaning of the words were being used. The references you read about analysing C functions, all refer to LEAF C funcitions (or C functions completed with the code they use) which does make them the equivalent of actual programs.
Your ignorant ignore of that fact, just makes you a stupid liar.