Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES

On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>
It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes
the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
behavior of the directly executed D(D)
>

>
Why? I don't claim it can.

 When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input
to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and
and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you
have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog.

No, by asking a Red Herring question, *YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, because you have been backed in to a corner. The fact that you keep on trying to redefine terms in strange ways just shows that you intend to be deceptive, so you aren't even not interested in an Honest Dialog, but you want to engage in deception.
It is YOUR problem to solve, and you are just proving that you can't do it and have wasted your life on stuff you can't prove.

 The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions
at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06]
are simulated/executed.
 What are the remaining steps that prove that the input
to H(D,D) has the behavior of D(D) ???

THE DEFINITION YOU DUMMY.
Remember, "Inputs" don't have behavior, as they are only "finite string"
BEHAIVOR is what Programs have.
By the definition of a Halting Decider, the decider is to report on the behavior of the program the input represents.
SO, H(D,D) is asking about the Program D(D).
Now, if H(D,D) is NOT asking about the behavior of program D(D), then you are just admitting that you lied and didn't follow the instructions of Linz or Sipser, because in both cases, the high level description of what those inputs do, is to ask H on the behaviors of themselves, and *YOU* coded that as a call to H(D,D).
SO, either you admit that you have been LYING about building the input per the proof, or you are LYING about H(D,D) not asking about the behavior of D(D).
Either way, you are just admitting to being an ignorant liar.

 _D()
[00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
[00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
[00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
[00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
[00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
[00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
[00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
[00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
[00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
[00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
[00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
[00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
[00000d1d](01) c3          ret
Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]