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