Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual code of HHH
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:37:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7b05fbf84e9705c95e5a9c46887f9bbff83e08f4@i2pn2.org>
References: <f73c3b97590a4d189e33a2cf255ed3337e56d3cf@i2pn2.org>
	<vpo6v9$2p51t$1@dont-email.me>
	<9b4f34b56d46274d2ef819d313770251aff04b65@i2pn2.org>
	<vpor68$2vaf3$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:37:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1992702"; 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: 3503
Lines: 50

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:54:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/26/2025 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/26/25 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2025 3:52 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Since there is so much talk around, but not really about it,
>>>> let's take a look:
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
>>>> 48b4cbfeb3f486507276a5fc4e9b10875ab24dbf/Halt7.c#L1081 In line 1137,
>>>> we compute a flag:
>>>> u32 Root = Init_Halts_HH(&Aborted, &execution_trace, &decoded,
>>>> &code_end,
>>>> (u32)P, &master_state, &slave_state, &slave_stack);
>>>> In line 918, we find it basically checks for the magic number
>>>> **execution_trace==0x90909090. What is this unexplained value?
Where does it come from?

>>>> We then pass the saved flag in line 1143:
>>>> if (Decide_Halting_HH(&Aborted, &execution_trace, &decoded,
>>>> code_end, End_Of_Code, &master_state, &slave_state, &slave_stack,
>>>> Root)), defined in line 1030. Then we get a switch:
>>>> 1059    if (Root)  // Master UTM halt decider
>>>> Line 1070 is then conditionally skipped:
>>>> Needs_To_Be_Aborted_HH((Decoded_Line_Of_Code*)**execution_trace);
>>>> defined in line 1012, which (on a jmp or call instruction) calls u32
>>>> Needs_To_Be_Aborted_Trace_HH(Decoded_Line_Of_Code* execution_trace,
>>>> Decoded_Line_Of_Code *current)
>>>> in line 964, where the abort logic lives. (It basically triggers on a
>>>> call or jump to itself.)
>>>> So we only abort depending on the address of the execution trace.
>>>> This makes no sense. Why is that?
>>>>
>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the behavior that the x86 machine code
>>> of DD cannot possibly terminate normally thus HHH is infallibly
>>> correct to report that this DD emulated by HHH (not any other DD in
>>> the whole freaking universe) is not-terminating.
Don't dodge. What is line 918 for?

>> No, HHH doesn't see the actual behavior define by the x86 processor, as
>> it aborts its simulaiton before it gets there. You just don't know what
>> "correct" means,
> If you cannot provide the correct first fifteen steps of DD correctly
> emulated by HHH to show exactly how I am wrong then everyone that
> understands these things will understand that YOUR REBUTTAL HAS NO
> BASIS.
That depends entirely on the call to HHH.

> I am writing this for my posthumous reviewers.
You will be forgotten.
-- 
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.