Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vvrmh3$sas2$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Leap=3A_Why_Behavioral_Divergence?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Implies_a_Type_Distinction_in_the_Halting_Problem?= Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 21:30:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: <vvrmh3$sas2$1@dont-email.me> References: <vv1UP.77894$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$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 04:31:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15cac720ddbb61c7f6586fe023932af8"; logging-data="928642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WEA9puBXGHJagJmrTtLvw" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mqiQZcf4nHpQbvSoZvW5BpaFmh0= In-Reply-To: <vvrm34$nejb$4@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250511-4, 5/11/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3337 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. 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. This might possibly send you all to actual Hell if such a place exists. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer