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

On 5/12/25 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.

 It need not be a program knucklehead.
Termination analyzers often work on C functions.
 

Nope, only PROGRAMS. Now, SOME C funcitons are programs (in the computation sense) because they include all there code.
You are just showing how little you understand what you have read, because you just don't know the meaning of the words you used.
Have you ever ACTUALLY SEEN a paper about a termination analyizer that analyized a non-leaf function, without the actual definition of the functions it calls?
You are just showing why the world will just ignore everything you have said, even the few ideas that might of had some truth in them, becuase it is just too much to figure it out. Your signal to noise is so negative, it isn't worth the effort.