Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Kicking the straw-man deception
 out on its ass
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 19:51:09 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3becbbdb060c494dd4fe1bd18de8bdd65f3a9d43@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq2i40$ug75$3@dont-email.me> <vq4f8t$1bmtr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq4smg$1e30q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:51:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2727696"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vq4smg$1e30q$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/3/25 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2025 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-02 21:21:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the behavior that DD
>>> specifies cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
>>> and terminate normally.
>>
>> DD does not fully specify a behaviour. The behaviour depends on HHH,
>> which is not a part of DD. If HHH returns 0 then DD specifies a non-
>> terminatingg behaviour but that is a big if.
>>
> 
> A stipulated premise is that HHH emulates its input.
> This is proven by the actual code that no one here
> understands.

ANd iif you mean correctly emulates its input, then you augmentation of 
it deciding to abort is invalid, and thus your stipulation implies that 
HHH will never answer and thus isn't a decider and thus you are just 
admitting to being a liar.

> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> The above code proves that:
> (a) HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DD.
> 
> (b) DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
> 
> (c) The behavior of the input to HHH(DD) is different
> than the behavior of the directly executed DD because
> DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation and the directly
> executed DD does not call HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 
> 

And where is that difference? You have implicitly admited this is a lie, 
because you can't show the first instruction actually emulated where the 
difference occurs.

Your problem is your claim is based on unsupporeted (and unsupportable) 
lies and make-beleive.

All you are doing is proving you are just a pathological lying idiot 
that doesn't care about the truth.