Sujet : Re: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state
De : rjh (at) *nospam* cpax.org.uk (Richard Heathfield)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 10. May 2025, 03:25:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Fix this later
Message-ID : <vvmden$34h6f$6@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/05/2025 03:16, olcott wrote:
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
No, it's not.
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.
Before you can get to the x86 instructions, you have to be able to compile HHH, which you cannot *correctly* do while it still contains a syntax error.
ALL rebuttals only have a dishonest change of subject
as their only basis.
This is the nub of your thinking, isn't it? You can't imagine being wrong, and in your eyes you are so obviously right that anyone who disagrees with you must be telling lies.
What are you, six?
-- Richard HeathfieldEmail: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state
Re: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state