Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts

On 8/18/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 7:11 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>
I can't ever get to the point of the computer science because
reviewers disagree with these basic facts.

No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the computere
science you claim to be doing.

We never get anywhere near the computer science because people disagree
with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.

WITH WHAT
>

void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
}

Which is NOT a program

I am talking above the behavior of the C function it is dishonest to
change the subject as any basis of rebuttal.

This is on topic. That function doesn't compile, since it's missing the
code of HHH.
>

 x86utm takes the compiled Halt7.obj file of this c program
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Thus making all of the code of HHH directly available to DDD.
 *I am now only talking about this thread*
[Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth ---V2]
 

And thus the input to HHH isn't the byte you try too app off as it but ALL of the code of Halt7.obj, so every HHH sees a DIFFERENT input so you can't use the results of one to try to provide data for a different one without making the mistake of talking about cats by looking at 10 story office buildings.
This means that the ONLY HHH that the above applies to is when HHH is non-aborting, and every HHH that does abort, can't use that, as its DDD doesn't call the needed HHH, but itself.
This means that DDD is Halting, if, and only if, HHH aborts its emulation and returns, or DDD is non-halting, if, and only if, HHH NEVER aborts its emulation.