PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 4:20 pm
So in other words you are dishonestly
changing the subject away from H(P,P).
Quit bullshitting, Pete. I am not changing the subject away from H(P, P). I am pointing out that H(P) has a
circular dependency on H.
The circular dependency is obvious in C
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
and it's obvious in Assembly
_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
Because P depends on H then P is equialent to P(H).
Because P = P(H) then H(P,P) is equivalent to H(P(H), P(H)).
So quit fucking bullshitting and satisfy P's dependencies already! Give me the source code for H!
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 4:20 pm
You do this because you know that I am correct
yet have no interest in truth only rebuttal.
It's precisely because I have an interest in truth is why I am calling out your bullshit.