Re: Repetitive posting [ Was: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)]

Op 10.mei.2025 om 16:30 schreef olcott:

On 5/10/2025 5:21 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

Do I have to repeat this 1000 times before you ever notice
that I said it once?

>
Most of what you write, you have written many, many times.  Reading your
posts is dull, dull, dull.  Whenever I look at your posts and see yet one
more x86 instruction sequence, or yet one more C fragment, I just
subconsciously skim over it.  You must have posted these literally 1000
times and more.
>
Why can't you post something original and fresh, for a change?
>
[ .... ]
>

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>

 *I only came up with this in the last month*

And this irrelevant text has been posted already many times.

 _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]
 HHH(DDD) is only allowed to compute the mapping from
its input finite string to the behavior that this
input finite string actually. This is measured by HHH
emulating DDD according to the rules of the x86 language.
 

Since this strings includes the conditional abort, it specifies a halting program, but hHH computes another mapping, which makes it incorrect. That HHH is blind for the specified behaviour does not mean that the behaviour is not specified. It only proves that there are bugs in HHH, because it violates the semantics of the x86 language.