Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<101pask$pv5r$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 07:32:36 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 251 Message-ID: <101pask$pv5r$1@dont-email.me> References: <101khcl$3bfvj$6@dont-email.me> <101mbnh$3sodg$1@dont-email.me> <101njgb$7qau$3@dont-email.me> <4113b5c3cb0e33212819ef36a4de858e40e70cba@i2pn2.org> <101noka$8rb8$4@dont-email.me> <101o96g$db96$3@dont-email.me> <101ob1t$hd6o$3@dont-email.me> <101obrf$hlr6$1@dont-email.me> <101ocan$hd6o$6@dont-email.me> <101ochl$i3m6$1@dont-email.me> <101oda2$hd6o$8@dont-email.me> <101oe1m$i3m6$3@dont-email.me> <101oee0$hd6o$9@dont-email.me> <101oeik$i3m6$4@dont-email.me> <101ofvi$inkg$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:32:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8d60a62c1b73c7b5bb0b863e34dc9efe"; logging-data="851131"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fh9J7WhKUo1dtcm4uQGnG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:6cdlgCEDkCASTiBmkjWfJ1jUtxY= In-Reply-To: <101ofvi$inkg$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US On 6/3/2025 11:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/3/2025 10:29 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/3/2025 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/3/2025 10:20 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2025 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 8:57 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 5:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 3:48 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:47:23 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 3:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jun.2025 om 17:52 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH diverges from DDD correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1 as soon as HHH begins emulating itself emulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD, marked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *HHH1 never emulates itself emulating DDD* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is the beginning of the divergence of the behavior* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *of DDD emulated by HHH versus DDD emulated by HHH1* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Misleading words when you change the meaning of diverging. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike showed the traces side by side. Even after many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still cannot show the first instruction that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted differently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH and HHH1. The only difference is that HHH gives up the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation too early. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as HHH begins emulating itself and HHH1 NEVER >>>>>>>>>>>>> begins emulating >>>>>>>>>>>>> itself THIS IS THE DIVERGENCE. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is exactly the point where HHH aborts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Both the divergence and the abort are shown below. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>> [00002184] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>> [00002186] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [0000218b] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH >>>>>>>>>>> [00002190] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>> [00002193] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>> [00002194] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002194] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _main() >>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3] 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>> [000021a4] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>> [000021a6] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [000021ab] e843f3ffff call 000014f3 ; call HHH1 >>>>>>>>>>> [000021b0] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>> [000021b3] 33c0 xor eax,eax >>>>>>>>>>> [000021b5] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>> [000021b6] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0020) [000021b6] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly >>>>>>>>>>> address address data code language >>>>>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========== ============= >>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3][0010382d][00000000] 55 push ebp ; main() >>>>>>>>>>> [000021a4][0010382d][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; main() >>>>>>>>>>> [000021a6][00103829][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; >>>>>>>>>>> push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [000021ab][00103825][000021b0] e843f3ffff call 000014f3 ; >>>>>>>>>>> call HHH1 >>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038d1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored >>>>>>>>>>> at:1138d9 >>>>>>>>>>> [00002183][001138c9][001138cd] 55 push ebp ; DDD >>>>>>>>>>> of HHH1 >>>>>>>>>>> [00002184][001138c9][001138cd] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; DDD >>>>>>>>>>> of HHH1 >>>>>>>>>>> [00002186][001138c5][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; >>>>>>>>>>> push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [0000218b][001138c1][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; >>>>>>>>>>> call HHH >>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:14e2f9 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored >>>>>>>>>>> at:15e301 >>>>>>>>>>> [00002183][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 55 push ebp ; DDD >>>>>>>>>>> of HHH[0] >>>>>>>>>>> [00002184][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; DDD >>>>>>>>>>> of HHH[0] >>>>>>>>>>> [00002186][0015e2ed][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; >>>>>>>>>>> push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [0000218b][0015e2e9][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; >>>>>>>>>>> call HHH >>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:198d21 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS WHERE THE DIVERGENCE OF DDD EMULATED BY HHH >>>>>>>>>>> AND DDD EMULATED BY HHH1 BEGINS >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So how exactly do HHH and HHH1 emulate the first instruction >>>>>>>>>> of HHH differently? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The question is incorrect. >>>>>>>>> HHH emulates DDD two times and HHH1 emulates DDD one time >>>>>>>>> the whole second time is the divergence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no divergence if the instructions are emulated exactly >>>>>>>> the same in both cases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HHH1(DDD) emulates DDD exactly one time. >>>>>>> HHH(DDD) emulates DDD exactly two times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The whole second time that HHH emulates DDD is >>>>>>> divergence. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let the record show that Peter Olcott has failed to identify an >>>>>> instruction that HHH and HHH1 emulated differently. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When HHH emulates itself emulating DDD and emulates >>>>> DDD a second time this second emulation of DDD begins >>>>> at its own address 00002183. >>>>> >>>>> HHH1 only emulates DDD exactly once. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Irrelevant, as that does not change the fact that the emulations >>>> performed by HHH and HHH1 are exactly the same up to the point that >>>> HHH aborts, as you have just admitted on the record: >>>> >>> >>> No matter what anyone ever said or misconstrued the >>> actual execution trace proves: >>> >> >> That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are identical up to the >> point that HHH aborts, > > Counter-factual as anyone that understands > the x86 language can clearly see. > False, as the side-by-side trace show exactly that and as you have admitted on the record *multiple times*: On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote: > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM? >>>>> >>>> >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator. >>>> It does not abort. >>> >>> Last chance: >>> >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the >>> emulation performed by HHH1? >> >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron. > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========