Re: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state

On 5/9/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 02:43, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 02:26, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_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]
>
Try to show how DDD emulated by HHH according to the
rules of the x86 language reaches its own "ret"
instruction final halt state.

>
First, try to find a way to prove that DDD is correctly emulated by HHH. Proof by assertion will not do.
>

>
*The burden of proof is on you*

 *guffaw*
 You have claimed, have you not, that you have found a major flaw in Peter Linz's proof of the Halting Problem?
 The ball is very firmly in your court.
 

You claim  that I made a mistake yet have no actual
evidence of any actual mistake.

 Your halt7.c code has a syntax error.

_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]
That is a dishonest change of subject away from
the details of how DDD emulated by any HHH according
to the rules of the x86 language could possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state.
ALL rebuttals only have a dishonest change of subject
as their only basis.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer