On 6/19/2022 5:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:16:03 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/19/2022 4:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 16:23:17 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/19/2022 4:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 16:17:20 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 4:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/19/22 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 3:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 15:16:05 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 3:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 15:05:11 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 2:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 14:17:42 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/22 2:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/22 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 12:40 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:16:05 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 12:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 11:23:24 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 11:01 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:39:34 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2022 10:23 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:13:00 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt whenever it enters a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its inputs to an accept or reject state on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of the actual behavior of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a simulating halt decider rejects all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs as non-halting whenever it correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detects [in a finite number of steps] that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its correct and complete simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input would never reach [a] final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input then all [these] inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (including pathological inputs) are decided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Output("Input_Halts = ",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H((u32)Px, (u32)Px)); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50 push eax ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6827040000 push 00000427
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call 00000476 Input_Halts = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been decided correctly. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010fa](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010fb](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010fd](03)  8b4508          mov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08] [00001100](01)  50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax       // push P [00001101](03)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001104](01)  51              push ecx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // push P [00001105](05)  e800feffff call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000f0a  // call H [0000110a](03)  83c408 add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> esp,+08 [0000110d](02)  85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000110f](02)  7402            jz 00001113
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001111](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001111
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001113](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001114](01)  c3              ret Size in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytes:(0027) [00001114]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at:211ee2 ...[000010da][00211ece][00211ed2] 55
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000010db][00211ece][00211ed2] 8bec mov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp ...[000010dd][00211ece][00211ed2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000010e0][00211eca][000010da] 50 push eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // push P ...[000010e1][00211eca][000010da]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000010e4][00211ec6][000010da] 51 push ecx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // push P ...[000010e5][00211ec2][000010ea]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e820feffff call 00000f0a // call H Infinitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *All technically competent software engineers*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will see that when H bases its halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision on whether or not its complete and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct x86 emulation of its input would ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the "ret" instruction of this input that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is correct to reject this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (u32)Px)); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6827040000 push 00000427
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call 00000476 Input_Halts = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret Number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Instructions Executed(16120)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been decided correctly. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *All technically competent software engineers*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (u32)Px)); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6827040000 push 00000427
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000476 Input_Halts = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xor eax,eax ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pop ebp ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided correctly. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is an easily verified fact that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and complete x86 emulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) by H would never reach the "ret" instruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P and this is the criterion measure for H to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject its input how do you figure that H gets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I am saying is a logical tautology the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we know that X is a black cat then we know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that X is a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are talking about Px, not P. We are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your H not analysing what its input actually does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and instead assuming that an input that calls H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always pathological.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (u32)Px)); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6827040000 push 00000427
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000476 Input_Halts = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xor eax,eax ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pop ebp ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided correctly. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(Px,Px) does correctly determine that the complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and correct x86 emulation of its input would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the "ret" instruction of Px.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is only true if H never returns ANY answer (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus fails to be a decider).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Competent software engineers will understand that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of Px matches this pattern that correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and complete x86 emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H would never reach the "ret" instruction of Px:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H knows its own machine address and on this basis:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H recognizes that Px is calling H with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments that H was called with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) There are no instructions in Px that could possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escape this infinitely recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) H aborts its emulation of Px before Px its call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is invoked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts. If H does abort, then Px(Px),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose behavior exactly matches the CORRECT emulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(Px,Px) BY DEFINITION shows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is: Would (future tense) the complete and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct x86 emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) by H ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the "ret" instruction of Px.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You always change this question to a different question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does (present tense) the complete and correct x86
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) by H ever reach the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction of Px.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complete and correct x86 emulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(Px, Px) should be to allow Px to halt, which is what Px
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is defined to do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are doing the same thing Richard is doing, getting at
>>>>>>>>>>>> least one word of what I am saying incorrectly and then
>>>>>>>>>>>> rebutting the incorrect paraphrase. This is the strawman
>>>>>>>>>>>> error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The complete and correct x86 emulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>> H(Px, Px) BY H
>>>>>>>>>>>> BY H
>>>>>>>>>>>> BY H
>>>>>>>>>>>> BY H
>>>>>>>>>>>> BY H
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly contradict the easily verified fact that Px
>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its "ret" instruction. This seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> beyond your ordinary software engineering technical
>>>>>>>>>>>> competence.
>>>>>>>>>>> Px is defined to always halt; your H gets the answer wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> saying Px doesn't halt. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every technically competent software engineer can easily
>>>>>>>>>> confirm that the correct and complete x86 emulation of the
>>>>>>>>>> input to H(Px,Px) by H would never reach the "ret"
>>>>>>>>>> instruction of Px.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you can not understand this proves that you are not a
>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently technically competent software engineer on this
>>>>>>>>>> point. Very good COBOL programmers might never be able to
>>>>>>>>>> understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To anyone that writes or maintains operating systems what I
>>>>>>>>>> am claiming would be as easy to verify as first grade
>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408          add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>> ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50              push eax
>>>>>>>>> ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000      push
>>>>>>>>> 00000427 ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff
>>>>>>>>> call 00000476 Input_Halts = 0
>>>>>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408          add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>> ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0            xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>> ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3              ret
>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not been decided
>>>>>>>>> correctly. QED.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Get an operating system programmer to explain to you that the
>>>>>>>> correct and complete x86 emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) by
>>>>>>>> H would never reach the "ret" instruction of Px. *This is
>>>>>>>> totally over your head*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is like I am saying that we know that black carts are cats
>>>>>>>> and you disagree saying the a black cat might be some kind of
>>>>>>>> dog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My whole system is now wrapped in 131K zip file as a Visual
>>>>>>>> Studio project on a downloadable link.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, maybe you need an actual programmer to look at your logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, by definition correct emulation of a program will match
>>>>>>> the behavior of the program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you disagree with this precisely stated verified fact you
>>>>>> are either a liar or incompetent:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the correct and complete x86 emulation of the input to H(Px,Px)
>>>>>> by H would never reach the "ret" instruction
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you disagree the the above precisely stated verified fact by
>>>>>> changing its words and showing that the changed words are not
>>>>>> true then between liar and incompetent you prove to be a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
>>>>> {
>>>>> H(x, x);
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>> ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50 push eax
>>>>> ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000 push 00000427
>>>>> ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call 00000476
>>>>> Input_Halts = 0
>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>> ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>>>> ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
>>>>> ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
>>>>>
>>>>> It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not been decided
>>>>> correctly. QED.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS FALSE?
>>>> the correct and complete x86 emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) by
>>>> H would never reach the "ret" instruction
>>>
>>> What I am saying is the following, no more, no less:
>>>
>>> void Px(u32 x)
>>> {
>>> H(x, x);
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
>>> }
>>>
>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>> ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50 push eax
>>> ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000 push 00000427
>>> ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call 00000476
>>> Input_Halts = 0
>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>> ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>> ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
>>> ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
>>> Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
>>>
>>> It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not been decided correctly.
>>> QED.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You are not committing to a criterion measure of correctness thus
>> your claim is vague.
>
> Vague? My "claim" is crystal clear: Px should ALWAYS HALT and your H
> decides that it is non-halting.
>
> /Flibble
>

Flibble knows that he is so woefully incompetent that he refuses to
answer whether or not the following is true or false:

the correct and complete x86 emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) by
H would never reach the "ret" instruction

If one has no idea whether or not a statement is true or false and they
want to hide the fact that they have no idea then when repeatedly
pressed to provide an answer the best that they can possibly do is
continue to dodge the question.

it is no longer worth my time to continue to talk to you of Richard.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer