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

On 3/4/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/3/25 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
*Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*

>
No, it proves that the HHH that rejects the input, didn't do a correct simulation, and thus was looking at the wrong input, because you don't understand what a program is.
>
DD only is non-halting if *THE* HHH (and there is only one at any time) never aborts. SInce HHH musts abort its emulation to "reject" the input, it proves it didn't do the needed correct emulation, and you are shown to be just a blantant liar.
>

>

>
And the HHH that correctly emulated DD, can't be a decider and answer.
>
Also. "the HHH", defined in your Halt7.c doesn't do that,

>
The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
own "ret" instruction.
>
Failing to provide the above proves that you are clueless
about this code.
>
>

Nope, I have shown why your logic is wrong,

 If that was true you could show this with
something besides rhetoric and double-talk.
 

That you call all I say as just rhetoric just shows how stupid you are.
WHere is a reference to you criteria as been valid?
Why do you ignore the actual definition of a Halt Decider / Termination Analyzer?
You do understand that pure simulation can not work for Termination Analysis (except for the special case of no input, where it is just the same as Halt Deciding) as you need to prove for *ALL POSSIBLE* inputs, which can not be done by simple simulation/emulation.
You just don't understand what you are talking about.