Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty

On 2/22/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:

>

I have given everyone here all of the complete source code for a few
years

True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that
particular code.

Every post that I have been talking about for two or more years has
referred to variations of that same code.

Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting something
new and fresh.

As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge my key
points I will be done.

Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other.
>

Let's start with a root point.
All of the other points validate this root point.
*Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
*the non-halt status of DD*

Since DD halts, that's dead in the water.
>

>
Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man
deception aside:
>
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate
normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
>

>
Only because that statement is based on a false premise.
>
Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement is just a fabrication of your imagination.

>
*Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified*
It cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that the machine code specifies. That most people here are clueless about
x86 machine code is far less than no rebuttal at all.
>
_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>
When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot
possibly return to the emulator, conclusively proving
that
>
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate
normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
>
Assuming that it does return is simply stupid.
>
>

 Similarly, when no_numbers_greater_than_10 emulated by F calls F(0) this call cannot possibly return to the emulator, conclusively proving that

 no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly emulated by F cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction
 Therefore you believe that there is no natural number greater than 10.
 Assuming that is does return is simply stupid.