Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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 21:38:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f882aef658889492a5200ea12661740177f9f2cc@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$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 02:50:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="118633"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvrnrg$sjai$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5019
Lines: 87

On 5/11/25 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 according to the rules of the x86 language such
> that the correctly emulated DDD reaches its own "ret"
> instruction final halt state.
> 
> 


So?

Why does there need to be?

It would only need to be there if you stipulated that you HHH *WAS* a 
correct emulator, but then, as you have proved, it doesn't return an 
answer and thus is not a decider.

Your problem is you seem to not understand that the question put to H is 
an OBJECTIVE question, not based on what "H sees" but about what is just 
true, and that means just by SOME correct emulator (which will do the 
same as direct execution).

You are showing that you just fundamentally don't understand the meaning 
of TRUTH, and think it ok to just lie about things.

You also show you don't understand the basic rules of computation 
theory, and think it ok to just make up your own ideas, which become 
lles when you ignore the instruction that others have given,

IT just shows that you seem to be incapbable of actually following the 
rules of systems, because you are just naturally rebelious, which is 
what is going to put you into that lake of fire.