Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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 21:57:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <7N2UP.527443$wBt6.464256@fx15.ams4> <39947848bf73be52ee6fbbeb6d0d929009dfec8e@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 04:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15cac720ddbb61c7f6586fe023932af8"; logging-data="937298"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tgaKI7WZYfbYxESTjdWpg" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ivTTNY0g7Md0RX7DHnnDevLoVwo= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250511-4, 5/11/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 4414 On 5/11/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote: > On 5/11/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/11/2025 9:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/11/2025 10:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Which means "some HHH" is a category error.  There is only one >>> algorithm HHH and one algorithm DDD. >>> >> >> *You absolutely refuse to get the gist of anything* >> >> There cannot possibly exist an x86 emulator at machine >> address 000015d2 that emulates one or more instructions >> of DDD > > Changing the input is not allowed. I am talking about every element of an infinite set you nitwit. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer