Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller --- Mike

On 7/9/2025 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/8/25 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2025 2:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

>
This is one of PO's practiced tactics - he makes a claim, and regardless of how patently false that claim appears, he refuses to logically defend the claim beyond saying "the claim is true, and if you understood xxx you would realise it is true".
>

>
All of my claims are easily verified facts to those
with the capacity to verify them.
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_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]

 Not a program, must include the code for HHH to be simulatable.
 

You must have dementia.
I have told you that HHH does emulate DDD
then it emulates itself emulating DDD 500 times now.

>
I am utterly shocked that you can't understand
that DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics
of the x86 language cannot possibly reach past
it own machine address [0000219a].

 But that DDD Can't be simulated by HHH without including the code that you refuse to accept is part of the input.
 

HHH is the test program.
DDD is the program under test.
HHH is only determining whether or not DDD emulated
by HHH can reach its own emulated final halt state.
The historical (official received view) answer to
this same question is:
I have no idea. I give up. I will call it undecidable.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer