Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 21:39:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <43370e2aa6b5cd75a3a0b2a5680718bf6aead7c9@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvrmnd$s0mk$3@dont-email.me> <vvrn1n$sas2$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvrn6r$s0mk$5@dont-email.me> <vvrnrg$sjai$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvrntc$s0mk$7@dont-email.me> <vvro2s$sjai$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 02:50:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="118633"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvro2s$sjai$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/11/25 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/11/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/11/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2025 9:42 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2025 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/11/2025 9:34 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/11/2025 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 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Category error.  Algorithm DDD isn't fully defined until algorithm 
>>>>>> HHH is fully defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So yes the code is relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Algorithm HHH is fully defined as an x86 emulator
>>>>> that emulates one or more steps of DDD according
>>>>> to the rules of the x86 language.
>>>>
>>>> Which means "some HHH" is a category error.  There is only one 
>>>> algorithm HHH and one algorithm DDD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *You absolutely refuse to get the gist of anything*
>>>
>>> There cannot possibly exist an x86 emulator at machine
>>> address 000015d2 that emulates one or more instructions
>>> of DDD 
>>
>> Changing the input is not allowed.
> 
> I am talking about every element of an infinite set you nitwit.
> 

None of which get the right answer, as we need to look at each one 
individually, since they all get different inputs (at least if the input 
is legal, and contains all its code).

Sorry, you are just proving that you are telling an INFINITE number of LIES.