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

On 5/9/25 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 9:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

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,

 EVERY HYPOTHETICAL HHH THAT CAN POSSIBLY EXIST
EVERY HYPOTHETICAL HHH THAT CAN POSSIBLY EXIST
EVERY HYPOTHETICAL HHH THAT CAN POSSIBLY EXIST

Nope, not the HHH that begins with:
int HHH(ptr P) {
    static bool flag = 0;
    if (flag) return 0;
    flag = 1;
    // put here code to correctly emulate all the instrucitons of the program P

 _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.
 

Now, the real problem is that since the input you provide doesm't include the code for the HHH that DDD calls, every HHH that looks at those instruction is an impure function, and thus your saying they do this means my program is allowed.
Otherwise, all you HHH's fail after they reach the call HHH instruciton,
Sorry, this has been pointed out many times, so you know the problem, but you just show your stupidity by repeating it and not even trying to answer the error pointed out.