Re: Flibble’s Leap: Why Behavioral Divergence Implies a Type Distinction in the Halting Problem

On 5/11/2025 9:23 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/05/2025 03:05, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 8:34 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/05/2025 02:12, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

No one here is using any actual reasoning
in their rebuttals of my work.

>
I have already shown several places where your 'work' violates the rules of its implementation's language standard,

>
My compiler disagrees so I can't fix that.

 C compilers are obliged to diagnose syntax errors. If they don't, they're not-quite-C compilers. You need to decide whether you're writing in C or whether you're not.
 

_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]
When testing the proof-of-concept not one line
of my code is relevant. The only thing that needs
be determined is the behavior of DDD under some
HHH that emulates DDD according to the rules of
the x86 language.
The ONLY reason that you or anyone else brings up
these other things is that you (and they) know that
I am correct and yet want to dishonestly disagree anyway.
This might possibly send you all to actual Hell
if such a place exists.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer