On 6/10/22 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2022 8:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:43:48 -0500
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2022 8:35 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:33:27 -0500
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/10/2022 8:29 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:27:28 -0500
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 8:23 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:05:57 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 6:11 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:35:05 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 5:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:18:38 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 5:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:09:08 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 4:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 4:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 2:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 3:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 12:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 12:39:32 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 12:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 12:15:24 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 12:06 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 11:34 AM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             if (H(x, x))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             P(P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012e7](01)  55              push
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebp [000012e8](02)  8bec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp [000012ea](03)  8b4508
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov eax,[ebp+08] [000012ed](01)  50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax [000012ee](03)  8b4d08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ecx,[ebp+08] [000012f1](01)  51
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ecx [000012f2](05)  e880feffff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call 00001177 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012f7](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012fa](02)  85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012fc](02)  7402 jz 00001300
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012fe](02)  ebfe jmp 000012fe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001300](01)  5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001301](01)  c3 ret Size in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytes:(0027) [00001301]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001307](01)  55              push
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebp [00001308](02)  8bec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp [0000130a](05)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 68e7120000 push 000012e7 // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000130f](05) e8d3ffffff call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 000012e7 // call P [00001314](03)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 83c404 add esp,+04 [00001317](02)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 33c0 xor eax,eax [00001319](01)  5d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pop ebp [0000131a](01) c3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    ret Size in bytes:(0020) [0000131a]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            machine   stack     stack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine assembly address   address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data code language ========  ========
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ======== ========= =============
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001307][00102190][00000000] 55
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001308][00102190][00000000] 8bec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000130a][0010218c][000012e7]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 68e7120000 push 000012e7 // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000130f][00102188][00001314]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e8d3ffffff call 000012e7 // call P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012e7][00102184][00102190] 55
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ebp // enter executed P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012e8][00102184][00102190] 8bec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ea][00102184][00102190]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ed][00102180][000012e7] 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ee][00102180][000012e7]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012f1][0010217c][000012e7] 51
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012f2][00102178][000012f7]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e880feffff call 00001177 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution Trace Stored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at:212244
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012e7][00212230][00212234] 55
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ebp // enter emulated P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012e8][00212230][00212234] 8bec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ea][00212230][00212234] 8b4508
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ed][0021222c][000012e7] 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax      // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ee][0021222c][000012e7] 8b4d08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012f1][00212228][000012e7] 51
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012f2][00212224][000012f7]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e880feffff call 00001177 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, by what instruction reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manual is a call 00001177
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> followedby the execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction at 000012e7.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your "CPU" is broken, or emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012e7][0025cc58][0025cc5c] 55
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ebp      //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter emulated P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012e8][0025cc58][0025cc5c] 8bec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ea][0025cc58][0025cc5c] 8b4508
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ed][0025cc54][000012e7] 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax      // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ee][0025cc54][000012e7] 8b4d08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012f1][0025cc50][000012e7] 51
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012f2][0025cc4c][000012f7]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e880feffff call 00001177 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is completely obvious that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) correctly emulates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input that it must emulate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first seven instructions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P. Because the seventh instruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P repeats this process we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know with complete certainty that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation of P by H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final “ret” instruction, thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, the 7th intruction DOESN't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Just repeat the procedure",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because that H always has the option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to abort its simulation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just like this onne did, and return to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its P and see it halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNDERSTAND THIS IS NO ACTUAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REBUTTAL AT ALL:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The partial correct x86 emulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the complete and correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x86 emulation would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You SAY that, but you don't answer the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual questions about HOW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNDERSTAND THIS IS NO EVIDENCE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHAT-SO-EVER THAT I DID NOT COMPLETELY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROVE THAT THE CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARTIAL EMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE CORRECT AND COMPLETE X86 EMULATION OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE INPUT TO H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is completely obvious that when H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that it must emulate the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seven instructions of P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the seventh instruction of P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeats this process we know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with complete certainty that the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and complete emulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P by H would never reach its final “ret”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction, thus never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P should have halted (i.e. no infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop) then your simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detector, S (not H), gets the answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You S is NOT a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNDERSTAND THIS IS NO ACTUAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REBUTTAL AT ALL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03)  8b4508          mov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08] [00001358](01)  50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax      // push P [00001359](03)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [0000135c](01)  51
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               push ecx      // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05)  e840feffff call 000011a2 //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call H [00001362](03)  83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02)  85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00001369 [0000136b](01)  5d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pop ebp [0000136c](01)  c3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ret Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is completely obvious that when H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that it must emulate the first seven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of P. Because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the seventh instruction of P repeats this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process we know with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete certainty that the correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete emulation of P by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its final “ret”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction, thus never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are going around and around and around in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circles. I will try again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you replace the opcodes "EB FE" at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00001369 with the opcodes "90 90"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then your H gets the answer wrong: P should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have halted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I already said before this is merely your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluelessness that when H(P,P) is invoked the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes and code after [0000135d] unreachable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, because when that H return the value 0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will get there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said people that are dumber than a box
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of rocks won't be able to correctly understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H(P,P) is invoked the correctly emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction beyond [0000135d].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are defining that you H(P,P) never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns because it is caught in the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rcursion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats fine, just says it can't be the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering decider you claim it to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have corrected you on this too many times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How. You need to define what H(P,P) actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have explained that too many times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To understand that H(P,P)==0 is correct we only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know that H performs a correct x86
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation of its input and then examine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And a CORRECT emulation of the code will Halt if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) returns 0, which it can only do if it does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not actually do a correct emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correctly emulated input to H(P,P) never gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past its machine address [0000135d].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H actually doesn't return 0. Yes, H can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly return 0 if it correctly emulates its input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but you can't drop that requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           if (H(x, x))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H returns 0 it does not returns 0 to P it returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 to main().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it also return 0 to the computation P(P), maybe not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the copy that it is simulating, since it aborts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before it get to it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally you are not stupid or deceptive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H never returns a value to P then H is not a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider; if H returns a value of 0 to main() when P halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H is not a halting decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is not a halting decider; H is a simulation detector, S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are saying the infintely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation only excutes for a few steps and then it stops
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on its own.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that your H is not a halting decider; I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that your H is just a simulation detector, S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are saying that you simply "don't believe in" simulating
>>>>>>>>>>> halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>> You haven't got a simulating halt decider, what you have got
>>>>>>>>>> is a simulation detector.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that H does correctly decide the
>>>>>>>>> halt status of its input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>        Output("Input_Halts = ", H0(Infinite_Loop));
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>> [00001342](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001343](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [00001345](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001345
>>>>>>>>> [00001347](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001348](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001348]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _main()
>>>>>>>>> [00001372](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001373](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [00001375](05)  6842130000      push 00001342
>>>>>>>>> [0000137a](05)  e833fdffff      call 000010b2
>>>>>>>>> [0000137f](03)  83c404          add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>> [00001382](01)  50              push eax
>>>>>>>>> [00001383](05)  6823040000      push 00000423
>>>>>>>>> [00001388](05)  e8e5f0ffff      call 00000472
>>>>>>>>> [0000138d](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>> [00001390](02)  33c0            xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>> [00001392](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001393](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [00001393]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>>>>>       address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>>>>>       ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>>>>>> [00001372][0010228f][00000000] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001373][0010228f][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [00001375][0010228b][00001342] 6842130000 push 00001342 // push
>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop
>>>>>>>>> [0000137a][00102287][0000137f] e833fdffff call 000010b2 // call
>>>>>>>>> H0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored
>>>>>>>>> at:212343 [00001342][00212333][00212337] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001343][00212333][00212337] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [00001345][00212333][00212337] ebfe       jmp 00001345
>>>>>>>>> [00001345][00212333][00212337] ebfe       jmp 00001345
>>>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Loop Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [0000137f][0010228f][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>> [00001382][0010228b][00000000] 50         push eax
>>>>>>>>> [00001383][00102287][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423
>>>>>>>>> [00001388][00102287][00000423] e8e5f0ffff call 00000472
>>>>>>>>> Input_Halts = 0
>>>>>>>>> [0000138d][0010228f][00000000] 83c408     add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>> [00001390][0010228f][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>> [00001392][00102293][00100000] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001393][00102297][00000004] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(680)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int Sum(int X, int Y)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>        return X + Y;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>        Output("Input_Halts = ", H2(Sum, 3, 4));
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _Sum()
>>>>>>>>> [000012b6](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [000012b7](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [000012b9](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>> [000012bc](03)  03450c          add eax,[ebp+0c]
>>>>>>>>> [000012bf](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [000012c0](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0011) [000012c0]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _main()
>>>>>>>>> [00001316](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001317](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [00001319](02)  6a04            push +04
>>>>>>>>> [0000131b](02)  6a03            push +03
>>>>>>>>> [0000131d](05)  68b6120000      push 000012b6
>>>>>>>>> [00001322](05)  e85ffaffff      call 00000d86
>>>>>>>>> [00001327](03)  83c40c          add esp,+0c
>>>>>>>>> [0000132a](01)  50              push eax
>>>>>>>>> [0000132b](05)  6807040000      push 00000407
>>>>>>>>> [00001330](05)  e821f1ffff      call 00000456
>>>>>>>>> [00001335](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>> [00001338](02)  33c0            xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>> [0000133a](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [0000133b](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0038) [0000133b]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>>>>>       address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>>>>>       ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>>>>>> ...[00001316][001021d7][00000000] 55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>> ...[00001317][001021d7][00000000] 8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> ...[00001319][001021d3][00000004] 6a04            push +04
>>>>>>>>> ...[0000131b][001021cf][00000003] 6a03            push +03
>>>>>>>>> ...[0000131d][001021cb][000012b6] 68b6120000      push 000012b6
>>>>>>>>> ...[00001322][001021c7][00001327] e85ffaffff      call 00000d86
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored
>>>>>>>>> at:21228b ...[000012b6][00212273][00212277] 55
>>>>>>>>> push ebp ...[000012b7][00212273][00212277] 8bec            mov
>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp ...[000012b9][00212273][00212277] 8b4508          mov
>>>>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08] ...[000012bc][00212273][00212277] 03450c
>>>>>>>>> add eax,[ebp+0c] ...[000012bf][00212277][00000e54] 5d
>>>>>>>>>     pop ebp ...[000012c0][0021227b][00000003] c3
>>>>>>>>> ret ...[00001327][001021d7][00000000] 83c40c          add
>>>>>>>>> esp,+0c ...[0000132a][001021d3][00000001] 50              push
>>>>>>>>> eax ...[0000132b][001021cf][00000407] 6807040000      push
>>>>>>>>> 00000407 ---[00001330][001021cf][00000407] e821f1ffff
>>>>>>>>> call 00000456 Input_Halts = 1
>>>>>>>>> ...[00001335][001021d7][00000000] 83c408          add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>> ...[00001338][001021d7][00000000] 33c0            xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>> ...[0000133a][001021db][00100000] 5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> ...[0000133b][001021df][00000004] c3              ret
>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(660)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All you are showing here is that your H can decide the halt
>>>>>>>> status of two trivial cases however you have not shown that H
>>>>>>>> can decide the halt status of non-trivial cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said:
>>>>>>> "You haven't got a simulating halt decider"
>>>>>>> Apologize and we can move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I posted four paragraphs but you ignored three of them. Lets try
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> IF YOU DON'T APOLOGIZE THEN WE CANNOT MOVE ON !!!
>>>>
>>>> It seems I need to try again. Perhaps it will help if I combine the
>>>> four paragraphs into a single paragraph:
>>>>
>>>> All you are showing here is that your H can decide the halt status
>>>> of two trivial cases however you have not shown that H can decide
>>>> the halt status of non-trivial cases.
>>>
>>> H is a halt decider for a subset of its inputs.
>>> H is a halt decider for P.
>>> When H is a halt decider for P all of the conventional halting
>>> problem proofs have been refuted.
>>
>> For H to be a halt decider it needs to be a halt decider for all inputs
>> not a subset.
>>
>>>
>>>> Publish the source code of your halt
>>>> decider so we can see what classes of programs your H can decide. I
>>>> am interested in deciding the halt status of programs containing
>>>> non-trivial branching logic predicated on arbitrary program input.
>>>
>>> These are out-of-scope.
>>
>> You may assert this but that doesn't make your assertion true.  If they
>> are out-of-scope then your H is out of scope of the Halting Problem.
>>
>>>
>>>> Crucially if your H cannot return an answer for an arbitrary
>>>> non-halting program in finite time then it isn't a halt decider.
>>>
>>> One can either say that H is a halt decider for a subset of its
>>> inputs or that H is a halt determiner. As long as H(P,P) correctly
>>> decides its input all of the conventional HP proofs have been refuted.
>>
>> If we are to make progress you need to publish the code of your
>> infinite loop detector.
>
> If you can't understand 14 lines of code then this conclusively proves
> that you won't understand hundreds of pages of code.

Maybe we should say that since YOU don't understand the actual behavior
of the 14 lines of code that YOU wrote, you can't possibly understand
what your program is doing.

>
> Because people here are only interested in rebuttal and don't give a
> rat's ass about an honest dialogue I make the price of a continued
> dialogue key points of mutual agreement.
>

But YOU seem to be only interested in pushing your FALSE ideas, and are
just ignoring the CORRECT rubuttal that people are providing (saying
they are just in "rebuttal mode", but NOT showing how their "rebuttal
mode" is actually incorrect).

> If you don't understand that H(P,P)==0 is correct then providing the
> source code will only provide the means for denigration based on lack of
> comprehension.  I absolutely will not tolerate that.
>

The fact that you don't understand that H(P,P) == 0 can ONLY be correct
if P(P) never halts, and that P(P) WILL Halt if H(P,P) returns 0 in
finite time, show that YOU are the one with a lack of comprehension.

Note, you can't actually prove something is wrong by showing something
else is right, all that does is prove that your logic system is
inconsistent.

You don't seem to understand this as the basis of a proof by
contradiction, that we start with a TENTATIVE assumption of something
being true, and showing that leads to an inconsistent result, which
means we can't add that assumption to our logic system (and unless our
logic system is already inconsistent, we won't be able to prove it) so
we can take the statement to be false.

All you have done in the past years is to prove that you don't
understand the basic concepts of logic and truth.

When I first met your ideas, I wondered if there might be an interesting
concept behind your ideas of Truth, your continued ignorance of basic
principles tells me that there is almost certainly nothing there, at
least not that you could provide.

>>  I suspect that you refuse to do this as you
>> know it is either a trivial pattern matcher or relies on machine state
>> (i.e. CPU registers and RAM) being unchanged during emulation of a
>> program loop which is an naively erroneous approach.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
>