Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86
 code
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:14:17 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <52304f4681892042635b15d64f001407601cc841@i2pn2.org>
References: <vptlfu$3st19$9@dont-email.me>
 <d128909f1359b48293dd1823d22d671435d5640c@i2pn2.org>
 <vpv6ad$8sdm$1@dont-email.me>
 <5c444106eafa1235cc4953d9be6faddf8825bcf3@i2pn2.org>
 <vpvlim$bjn9$2@dont-email.me>
 <1fa130b5ec11e0472fad3aca4cfef9bcb9741652@i2pn2.org>
 <vq06vt$eljf$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 01:14:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2424304"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vq06vt$eljf$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4906
Lines: 94

On 3/1/25 6:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2025 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/1/25 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2025 10:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/25 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/25 7:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that the code at machine address
>>>>>>> 0000213c is an x86 emulator then we know that DD
>>>>>>> remains stuck in recursive emulation and cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we add the additional complexity that HHH also
>>>>>>> aborts this sequence at some point then every level
>>>>>>> of recursive emulation immediately stops. This does
>>>>>>> not enable any DD to ever reach its "ret" instruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then you just negated your first assumption, as a partial 
>>>>>> emulator that aborts its emulation, then DD no longer gets stuck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>> proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>> proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>> proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it DOES terminate 
>>>
>>> DD emulated by HHH never terminates no matter how many
>>> times you try to get away with the straw-man deception
>>> of referring to anything at all besides
>>>
>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which since HHH doesn't correctly emulate DD is just a fantasy.
>>
> 
> If it was actually incorrect then someone could show
> how the above code is correctly emulated by HHH.

How? if HHH doesn't correctly do the emulation, then it doesn't do a 
correct emulation, and changing it to do so isn't valid.

> 
> Since no one has done this they must be insufficiently
> technically competent or untruthful for some other reason.

No, because

> 
> People that do not understand the above code and
> still claim that I am wrong are dishonest.
> 

No, you don't understand that the code does what the code does, and to 
do something different, it needs to be a different set of code, but the 
input, to be a program, includes the code of the ONE verison it was 
design to prove wrong, and doesn't change.

So, if your one HHH doesn't correctly simulated the DD given to it, the 
fact that changing DD to call a different HHH that does proves nothing, 
except that you are trying to pull off fraud.

Your stupidity to think that is valid speaks loudly,