Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals

On 3/4/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-04 03:07:56 +0000, olcott said:
 

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
_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]
>
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>
The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
own "ret" instruction.

 The question whether DD emulated by HHH exists is too uninteresting that
it would need a rebuttal, and so is the question that does it reach its
"ret" instruction if it exsists.
 

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
*Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*

Of course the question is not well posed as the exact meanings of
"HHH" and "cannot" are not specifies and therefore permit different
interpretations.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer