Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller

On 7/17/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-15 12:57:04 +0000, olcott said:
 

>
Whenever I have non-existent mistakes "corrected"
by the misconceptions of others, these still remain
the misconceptions of others.

 You must correct your errors. Others identify your errors and may propose
correction but it is your choce to correct your presentation.

Unless you can point out the details of what you claim
to be my mistake I will not be able to correct your
misconception.
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
Each element of the infinite set of functions
at machine address 000015d2 that emulates 0 to ∞
instructions of the above machine code never
reaches its emulated "ret" instruction final
halt state BECAUSE DDD CALLS EACH EMULATOR IN
RECURSIVE EMULATION.
*ChatGPT agrees and provides the reasoning why it agrees*
https://chatgpt.com/share/6877f09c-7b18-8011-b075-ea3671e57886
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer