Criteria for evaluating success at refuting the halting problem proofs (V1)

[olcott]

Would meeting this spec refute all the halting problem proofs:
I (will soon) have an x86 partial halt decider sufficiently equivalent
to the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the Linz Ĥ thus proving the
H/Ĥ template does not prevent a correct halting decision.

The Linz H is defined on page 318 and the Linz Ĥ is defined on page 319:
http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf

I wrote a "c" program that is translated into x86 machine language that
is executed on an x86 emulator that has been adapted to be equivalent to
a universal Turing machine for all computations not requiring more
memory than is available.

These are the only x86utm operating system functions provided:

// Saves the state of the current virtual-machine
void SaveState(u32* s);

// Loads the state of a saved virtual-machine
void LoadState(u32* s);

// Allocates memory from the heap
u32* Allocate(u32 size);

// The master machine executes the slave machine
void DebugStep(u32* master_state, u32* slave_state);



The solution will be provided as:
(a) The "c" source code of the whole halt deciding system.

(b) The x86 machine language generated by the "c" compiler disassembled
to x86 assembly language for the whole halt deciding system.

(c) A repository link to the whole x86utm system as open source.

(d) The full x86 assembly language execution trace of a partial halt
decider sufficiently equivalent to H correctly deciding halting on the
adaptation of itself specified by the Linz Ĥ template.

This assembly language execution trace will be augmented by "c" function
names for every function call. All values returned by any function are
placed in the EAX register.



Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott