XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/26/2025 6:14 AM, Richard the Demon wrote:   
   > On 7/25/25 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 7/25/2025 8:22 PM, Richard the Demon wrote:   
   >>> On 7/25/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>   
   >>>> _DDD()   
   >>>> [00002192] 55         push ebp   
   >>>> [00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   
   >>>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192  // push DDD   
   >>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2  // call HHH   
   >>>> [0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04   
   >>>> [000021a2] 5d         pop ebp   
   >>>> [000021a3] c3         ret   
   >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Until you provide the execution trace of DDD emulated   
   >>>> by HHH (according to the rules of the x86 language)   
   >>>> such that this emulated DDD reaches its own emulated   
   >>>> "ret" instruction final halt state   
   >>>> *you will be considered a fucking liar*   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> That is just a lIE.   
   >>>   
   >>> Until you realize that HHH just doesn't do a correct simulation,   
   >> *You dishonestly changed the words that I said, as you always do*   
   >> *Here are the words that I actually said*   
   >> (according to the rules of the x86 language)   
   >>   
   >   
   > Because your HHH ignores the last step of the last instruction it   
   > processes, that of execute the next instruction.   
   >   
      
      
        If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its*   
        *input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D*   
        *would never stop running unless aborted* then   
      
   _DDD()   
   [00002192] 55         push ebp   
   [00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   
   [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192  // push DDD   
   [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2  // call HHH   
   [0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04   
   [000021a2] 5d         pop ebp   
   [000021a3] c3         ret   
   Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]   
      
   As soon as HHH emulates DDD then emulates itself   
   emulating DDD and this DDD calls HHH(DDD) to do it   
   again, HHH has matched a non-terminating behavior pattern.   
      
   *You cannot possibly show any actual mistake in that*   
      
   It is a verified fact that no matter how many or few   
   x86 instructions of DDD that HHH emulates that no   
   emulated DDD can possibly ever reach its own emulated   
   "ret" instruction final halt state.   
      
   Like I said you remain a fucking liar until you refute   
   that with an execution trace that conforms to the rules   
   of the x86 language.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)