Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 08:17:48 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <vuki6c$646h$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2ad5086dba36124c070173c3e3252967df2fab9@i2pn2.org>
 <vu8g3q$v0qa$1@dont-email.me> <vu8lse$vn9b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8og4$13jl5$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d9ae3ac08bbbe4407fc3612441fc2032f949a3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vub168$3clpn$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ac75991b443ba53d52960ddb1932524dea8e03f@i2pn2.org>
 <40b048f71fe2ed2a8ef11d2d587c765c8fcbc977@i2pn2.org>
 <vucrgq$148pf$1@dont-email.me> <vudkt8$1ona3$2@dont-email.me>
 <vudp39$1rhdn$1@dont-email.me> <vudrgb$20gck$1@dont-email.me>
 <vue2fb$27hl3$1@dont-email.me> <vue464$28iho$2@dont-email.me>
 <vue57b$27hl3$3@dont-email.me> <vue8qm$2d7t8$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb382175aa6cc9a806dedc1d2bcfbd916dfaf1b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vuejgn$2md4c$3@dont-email.me>
 <ae8fce7ec0639d76c87bf1af0dfbc2a806053899@i2pn2.org>
 <vugucr$pke9$5@dont-email.me> <vui77f$217h6$2@dont-email.me>
 <vuj538$2lf64$9@dont-email.me> <vuj88g$2uahf$2@dont-email.me>
 <vujd67$335tl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 08:17:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae23edbd9f2ff10f9b4e5eebfee85502";
	logging-data="200913"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xa2wLiyKGYQL/mueCh56b"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Nfqut7EuK5lT54FEbyJiQ+io6c0=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vujd67$335tl$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4777

Op 26.apr.2025 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
> On 4/26/2025 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematical induction proves that DD emulated by HHH cannot 
>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>> reach its own final state in an infinite number of steps and it does
>>>>>>> this with one recursive emulation.
>>>>>>> There is a repeating pattern that every C programmer can see.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Fred wrote months ago, that has nothing to do with the 
>>>>>> contradictory
>>>>>> part of DD, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it does. The contradictory part of DD has always
>>>>> been unreachable thus only a ruse.
>>>>>
>>>>>> only with it being simulated by the same simulator it calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> That <is> the Halting Problem counter-example input.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by 
>>>>>> HHH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of
>>>>> the x86 language.
>>>> HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely 
>>>> aborting the halting program.
>>>
>>> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules
>>> of the x86 language yet no one can point out
>>> which rules are violated 
>>
>>
>> It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86 
>> language to abort a halting function. 
> 
> You remains stupidly wrong about this because
> you refuse to show what step of DD is not emulated
> by HHH according to the finite string transformation
> rules specified by the x86 language.
> 
> _DD()
> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002155] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
> 
> You refuse to show the incorrect step because you
> know that you are clueless about the x86 language
> and provide your "rebuttal" entirely on the basis
> of pure bluster. In other words pure Troll behavior
> on your part.
> 

No new information. No rebuttal.