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

On 5/11/25 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 8:07 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/05/2025 00:19, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>
<snip>
>

I am happy with my final solution; I glanced over all your
responses in this thread and they are all invalid.

>
>
In other words, you are admtting to being happy to be in error.

>
He has form for placing a finger in each ear and yelling "I'm right I'm right I'm right you're all wrong!"
>
There's no talking to 2-year-olds.
>

>
No one here is using any actual reasoning
in their rebuttals of my work. They rely
on dogma, misdirection, deflection and the
strawman error.
>
The last three methods are dishonest.
>

>
No, they are responding with rules and definitions from the system in question,
>

>
A syntax error reporting by one compiler and considered
irrelevant by another compiler provides zero evidence
that DDD correctly emulated by some HHH halts.

 I wasn't talking about "Syntax Errors".
 I was talking about the rules of the field of Computation Theory.
 

>
_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]
>
THE ONLY THING THAT SHOWS THIS IS THE IS THE
COMPLETE SEQUENCE OF EMULATED STEPS WHERE DDD HALTS.

 Which is impossble to do as the above is *NOT* a program, as it fails to have all the code that it uses.