Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Leap=3A_Why_Behavioral_Divergence?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Implies_a_Type_Distinction_in_the_Halting_Problem?=
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 07:47:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <41dae2a5a7264cb19777d8ab7cae6d15b5d73f07@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv1UP.77894$JJT6.54808@fx16.ams4> <vvqd4u$g8a1$1@dont-email.me>
 <7N2UP.527443$wBt6.464256@fx15.ams4> <vvqfgq$gmmk$1@dont-email.me>
 <os3UP.670056$BFJ.223954@fx13.ams4> <vvqgpt$gmmk$4@dont-email.me>
 <aG3UP.366972$wBVe.321504@fx06.ams4>
 <39947848bf73be52ee6fbbeb6d0d929009dfec8e@i2pn2.org>
 <fR8UP.92502$o31.50010@fx04.ams4>
 <fb3915123ad5c4703b92df902c37267fce2c4812@i2pn2.org>
 <vvrhk6$nejb$2@dont-email.me> <vvrhtj$nnmf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvrj7l$nt1l$1@dont-email.me> <vvrl0v$o2ab$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvrm34$nejb$4@dont-email.me> <vvrmh3$sas2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 11:51:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="23432"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vvrmh3$sas2$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

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.


> 
> 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.
> 

No, you are proving yourself just a stupid liar,

Since the HHH that answers doesn't do a correct eulation of the input, 
having it assume it does is just a LIE.

Remember, "Correct Emulation" includes not stopping until reachine the end.

Yes, as a decider it "must" stop to be one, but that makes it not be the 
correct emulator you assume, so you logic is just the belief in Fairy 
Tales, tales about a Truth Fairy that can make impossible statement be true.

That is your world of LIES.

> This might possibly send you all to actual Hell
> if such a place exists.
> 

No, since we are talking truth. You insistance on holding to lies will 
send you there.

And not beliveing in it won't keep you out of it.