Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vvrn1n$sas2$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Leap=3A_Why_Behavioral_Divergence?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Implies_a_Type_Distinction_in_the_Halting_Problem?= Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 21:39:51 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 52 Message-ID: <vvrn1n$sas2$3@dont-email.me> References: <vv1UP.77894$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$4@dont-email.me> <vvrmh3$sas2$1@dont-email.me> <vvrmnd$s0mk$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 04:39:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15cac720ddbb61c7f6586fe023932af8"; logging-data="928642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wPBtG1XZmh1mF0Tj8TbUF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:EOZMEMH5huSaVd06iD3mjnXoarU= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <vvrmnd$s0mk$3@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250511-4, 5/11/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 3525 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer