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: Failure to meet this challenge proves that all of my reviewers
 are wrong
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 19:50:59 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cf374554dac308d9c3fc67623928a3b450e1f865@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq1qnr$q7t4$3@dont-email.me> <vq28jf$sj4k$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq2a8d$t7sh$2@dont-email.me> <vq48ba$1acb4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq50un$1ev4u$4@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 00:51:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2727696"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vq50un$1ev4u$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5183
Lines: 120

On 3/3/25 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2025 6:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-02 19:06:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2025 12:38 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 02.mrt.2025 om 15:42 schreef olcott:
>>>>> HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that emulates
>>>>> the x86 machine code located at the address of a function
>>>>> using a fully functional x86 emulator.
>>>>>
>>>>> When HHH recognizes a non-terminating pattern in the
>>>>> execution trace of its emulated input it aborts this
>>>>> emulation and returns 0.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> 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]
>>>>>
>>>>> I challenged everyone here to provide the machine address
>>>>> by machine address (AKA line by line) execution trace
>>>>> of DD correctly emulated by HHH that reaches its own
>>>>> "ret" instruction.
>>>>
>>>> Olcott could as well challenge everyone to draw a correct square 
>>>> circle.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No one made any attempt to do this because they know that
>>>>> this would prove that they are stupidly wrong to say that
>>>>> my trace is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one will attempt to draw a square circle. Does that imply that it 
>>>> is wrong to say that another failed attempt to draw a square circle 
>>>> is incorrect?
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>>
>>> This C code conclusively proves that HHH does correctly
>>> emulate self emulating DD correctly.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>> A C code does not prove. Only a proof would prove.
>>
> 
> The C code proves exactly these things.
> That you can't even understand that it does prove
> those things shows even less technical competence.

The C code proves that HHH will abort its emulation, and thus is not a 
correct emulator

> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> The above code proves that:
> (a) HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DD.

No, it doesn't, it aborts
> 
> (b) DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

Since you HHH doesn't do that, it isn't shown by that code.

The fact that a DIFFERENT program DD calling a DIFFERENT HHH will never 
return is irrelvent, as that different HHH fails to decider.

> 
> (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.



> 
> This code proves that it reports integers > 5
> 
> void GT5(int X)
> {
>    if (X > 5)
>      printf("X is greater than five\n");
> }
> 
> 
Irrelevent.