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 correctly emulated by HHH --- Kicking the straw-man deception
 out on its ass
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 19:51:02 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b1f9c64a4ec1cc18c3a2b988c0e1ac8b826b4807@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq2i40$ug75$3@dont-email.me>
 <aff6ceb585b4f024c238d901362389163051aac8@i2pn2.org>
 <vq2jpi$ug75$4@dont-email.me>
 <a5881effb7ea9a41f6e94ad6262ccd48d9e09cf3@i2pn2.org>
 <vq33oq$11qv8$1@dont-email.me>
 <cf64074c718d487c7610a4cca877b88d953452f5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq3al4$16jdc$1@dont-email.me>
 <2824dfe17546e8aa501065961baafb0375a1c296@i2pn2.org>
 <vq4cpe$1b4no$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:51:02 -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: <vq4cpe$1b4no$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3572
Lines: 61

On 3/3/25 9:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2025 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 22:19:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/2/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/25 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2025 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/25 4:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/25 4:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> WHich only shows that HHH can not correctly emulate its input and
>>>>>>>> give an answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that HHH does correctly determine that DD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally proves that your claim is counter
>>>>>>> factual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say that, but it isn't true,
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep trying to get away with saying that the fact that DD calls
>>>>> its own emulator in recursive emulation does not change the behavior
>>>>> from the behavior of the directly executed DD.
>> Obviously. DD is fixed.
>>
>>>> And you keep on making the claim without evidence!!!!
>>>> What instruction acted differently between the to, that was directly
>>>> executied and correctly emulated to different results.
>>>>
>>> The call to HHH(DD) from the directly executed DD returns to DD. The
>>> call to HHH(DD) from DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly return
>>> BECAUSE IT CALLS ITS OWN EMULATOR.
>> Which proves that HHH can't simulate itself, since the rest is the same.
>>
> 
> That your technical skills are insufficient to understand
> the code that conclusively proves that HHH does emulate
> itself emulating DD
> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> 
> Is far less than no rebuttal at all.

NO, it proves that HHH only PARTIALLY emulates itself.

Your don't seem to know the difference, because you don't seem to 
understand what a correct emulation needs to be.

Of course, if you are willing to say that HHH does an INCORRECT 
emulaiton of itself, we can agree, but that blows your theory out of the 
water.

And the factd that is what it does, says your theory is at the bottom of 
the lake.

> 
>>> I never said it that clearly ever before.
>> Maybe you should have.
>>
> 
>