Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vvmctr$39lof$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its final halt state Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 21:16:26 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 63 Message-ID: <vvmctr$39lof$1@dont-email.me> References: <vvma0u$34vcu$1@dont-email.me> <vvma92$34h6f$4@dont-email.me> <vvmb0l$35ds5$1@dont-email.me> <vvmc17$34h6f$5@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 04:16:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7be348abb5bc2ec0a70724586a3ca680"; logging-data="3462927"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18j3h72QhJ/RVyHZgUeiF95" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:yHbNfvQJTdnQUfOPKP9wI20++8s= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250509-6, 5/9/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <vvmc17$34h6f$5@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 5/9/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 10/05/2025 02:43, olcott wrote: >> On 5/9/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 10/05/2025 02:26, olcott wrote: >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>> HHH(DDD); >>>> return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> _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] >>>> >>>> Try to show how DDD emulated by HHH according to the >>>> rules of the x86 language reaches its own "ret" >>>> instruction final halt state. >>> >>> First, try to find a way to prove that DDD is correctly emulated by >>> HHH. Proof by assertion will not do. >>> >> >> *The burden of proof is on you* > > *guffaw* > > You have claimed, have you not, that you have found a major flaw in > Peter Linz's proof of the Halting Problem? > > The ball is very firmly in your court. > >> You claim that I made a mistake yet have no actual >> evidence of any actual mistake. > > Your halt7.c code has a syntax error. _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] That is a dishonest change of subject away from the details of how DDD emulated by any HHH according to the rules of the x86 language could possibly reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state. ALL rebuttals only have a dishonest change of subject as their only basis. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer