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

On 5/12/2025 10:48 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
But then HHH  must do that, and you HHH that answers doesn't.
>
>

>
Of every x86 emulator at machine address 000015d2
that correctly emulates 1 or more instructions of
DDD none of these correctly emulated DDD instances
ever reaches its own "ret" instruction final halt state.
>

>
>
Changing the input is not allowed.

 Of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs that are
being simultaneously evaluated each DDD has
its own unique HHH