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: The actual code of HHH
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:40:25 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dec828e437832091246adc72827b683c91d43d0d@i2pn2.org>
References: <f73c3b97590a4d189e33a2cf255ed3337e56d3cf@i2pn2.org>
 <vpo6v9$2p51t$1@dont-email.me>
 <9b4f34b56d46274d2ef819d313770251aff04b65@i2pn2.org>
 <vpor68$2vaf3$7@dont-email.me>
 <7b05fbf84e9705c95e5a9c46887f9bbff83e08f4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 12:40:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2029402"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <7b05fbf84e9705c95e5a9c46887f9bbff83e08f4@i2pn2.org>

On 2/27/25 2:37 AM, joes wrote:
> 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.

He might be remembered as a great example of a failure and fraud.

Maybe his mental condition will be named for him.