Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof -- FL

On 2025-07-26 14:02:15 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/26/2025 6:14 AM, Richard the Demon wrote:

On 7/25/25 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 8:22 PM, Richard the Demon wrote:

On 7/25/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>

_DDD()
[00002192] 55         push ebp
[00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192  // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d         pop ebp
[000021a3] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
 Until you provide the execution trace of DDD emulated
by HHH (according to the rules of the x86 language)
such that this emulated DDD reaches its own emulated
"ret" instruction final halt state
*you will be considered a fucking liar*
 

 That is just a lIE.
 Until you realize that HHH just doesn't do a correct simulation,

*You dishonestly changed the words that I said, as you always do*
*Here are the words that I actually said*
(according to the rules of the x86 language)
 

 Because your HHH ignores the last step of the last instruction it processes, that of execute the next instruction.
 

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its*
     *input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
     *would never stop running unless aborted* then
 _DDD()
[00002192] 55         push ebp
[00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192  // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d         pop ebp
[000021a3] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
 As soon as HHH emulates DDD then emulates itself
emulating DDD and this DDD calls HHH(DDD) to do it
again, HHH has matched a non-terminating behavior pattern.

That is false. The behavour of DDD is that it terminates.
Therefore no pattern it matches is a non-terminating pattern.
--
Mikko