Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
 final halt state
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 03:25:27 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vvmden$34h6f$6@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>
 <vvmctr$39lof$1@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 04:25:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43b083a872fadb3f2c7703b3081889c2";
	logging-data="3294415"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HjPVNwyxtWAMf2PYoYGnE2whaG8kyjqOMSLTO68L+EQ=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JmriAaor7l7KwpODcvkaA86VPtw=
In-Reply-To: <vvmctr$39lof$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 10/05/2025 03:16, olcott wrote:
> 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

No, it's not.

> 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.

Before you can get to the x86 instructions, you have to be able 
to compile HHH, which you cannot *correctly* do while it still 
contains a syntax error.

> ALL rebuttals only have a dishonest change of subject
> as their only basis.

This is the nub of your thinking, isn't it? You can't imagine 
being wrong, and in your eyes you are so obviously right that 
anyone who disagrees with you must be telling lies.

What are you, six?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within