XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/27/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-07-26 14:02:15 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > That is false. The behavour of DDD is that it terminates.   
   > Therefore no pattern it matches is a non-terminating pattern.   
   >   
      
   This ChatGPT analysis of its input below   
   correctly derives both of our views. I did   
   not bias this analysis by telling ChatGPT   
   what I expect to see.   
      
   typedef void (*ptr)();   
   int HHH(ptr P);   
      
   void DDD()   
   {   
      HHH(DDD);   
      return;   
   }   
      
   int main()   
   {   
      HHH(DDD);   
      DDD();   
   }   
      
   Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:   
   (a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts its   
   simulation and returns 0,   
   (b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then it   
   returns 1.   
      
   https://chatgpt.com/share/688521d8-e5fc-8011-9d7c-0d77ac83706c   
      
      
   --   
   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)