Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Failure to meet this challenge proves that all of my reviewers
 are wrong [2]
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 19:19:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <119e547c3e83ba976982163b6dcae24281ac168e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me>
	<vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me> <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me>
	<vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me> <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me>
	<vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me> <vp9ct8$3af6t$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpav34$3jct4$1@dont-email.me> <vpc3u9$3skb7$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpcsvk$irt$2@dont-email.me> <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpfmpp$j7qb$6@dont-email.me> <vphbnb$10gus$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpivp4$1fvqe$6@dont-email.me> <vpklrk$21jn9$1@dont-email.me>
	<vplbnp$25vp2$5@dont-email.me>
	<b122ed1dc2c636321627d4dfc7936e463f920690@i2pn2.org>
	<vpltcn$28j3a$6@dont-email.me>
	<a8b150912bc326cd01c9e9ee89762d12b9fc571e@i2pn2.org>
	<vpm6hq$2dvrs$4@dont-email.me> <vpmo1m$2g3p0$3@dont-email.me>
	<vpn9m5$2jkdj$5@dont-email.me>
	<a686628c3dd1a48f5dcb8288e69758325782daa6@i2pn2.org>
	<vpoqbj$2vaf3$4@dont-email.me> <vppbmb$323f6$2@dont-email.me>
	<vpqd41$37v45$2@dont-email.me>
	<032b4871d813d3a0ff4dc7dcbf50cb6f2f26550b@i2pn2.org>
	<vq233j$ru20$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 19:19:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2480367"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4681
Lines: 56

Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 11:04:51 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/27/2025 3:00 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:06:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/27/2025 3:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/26/2025 9:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:49:42 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/2025 3:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 26.feb.2025 om 05:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You already know that you are stupidly wrong about the emulation
>>>>>>>>> being incorrect or you would have provided the correct emulation
>>>>>>>>> sequence long ago.
>>>>>>>>> What are the first 15 lines of DD correctly emulated by HHH?
>>>>>>>> The error in the simulation occurs already at the 5th
>>>>>>>> instruction,
>>>>>>>> the 'call 000015c3'. Instead of simulating this instruction,
>>>>>>> What are the correct first 15 lines of DD emulated by HHH.
>>>>>> There can be no correct continuation.
>>>>> If I am wrong then a correct simulation must exist.
>>>> HHH1 did a correct simulation, so, there it is.
>>> That dishonestly dodged the original question:
>>> What are the first 15 *lines of DD* correctly emulated by HHH?
>> Look at what HHH1 does.
>> 
>>> _DD()
>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping [00002134] 8bec    
>>>   mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping [00002136] 51         push ecx      ;
>>> make space for local [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 [00002144] 8945fc     mov
>>> [ebp-04],eax [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 [0000214b]
>>> 7402       jz 0000214f [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d [0000214f]
>>> 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>> [00002155] c3         ret Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
> 
>> Anyway: ignoring the call to HHH
> It moronically stupid unless HHH ignores this call and HHH does not
> ignore this call.
You didn't ask for the trace of HHH.

> What are the hexadecimal machine addresses of the first 10 lines of DD
> correctly emulated by HHH?
> A failure to answer that question with ten hexadecimal values proves
> that the reviewer is either dishonest or clueless.
Or lazy.
See below.
>> because it doesn't call DD in turn,
>> we continue with 2141 until the conditional jump, whereupon we either
>> enter an infinite loop (which is more than 15 instructions)
>> or proceed to return (which is 13 instructions), depending on the
>> return value of HHH.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.