Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified
 fact for 3 years
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:33:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v476cr$3ipmi$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44dle$3i5jo$2@dont-email.me> <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me>
	<v44qin$3g17f$5@i2pn2.org> <v44ru8$3m841$3@dont-email.me>
	<v44usm$3g17f$6@i2pn2.org> <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me>
	<v45h1l$3h642$1@i2pn2.org> <v45h88$3tjc2$1@dont-email.me>
	<v45i42$3h641$2@i2pn2.org> <v45ive$3tpr9$2@dont-email.me>
	<v45jqr$3h642$3@i2pn2.org> <v45kiu$3ue8q$2@dont-email.me>
	<v45lak$3h641$3@i2pn2.org> <v45m0m$3ukqt$1@dont-email.me>
	<v46drm$13ke$1@news.muc.de> <v4737k$ggn5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:33:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3761874"; 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: 3082
Lines: 36

Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:39:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:


> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
> 
> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as
> the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions of D to be
> incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below).
That doesn't make any sense. Surely the direct execution must be correct.
> _D()
> [00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov
> ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08
>      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D [00000d07](05)
> e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408      add
> esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404     
>   jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05
>        jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
> [00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3          ret Size
> in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
> 
> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the directly
> executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine address
> [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D*
D(D) does not ignore the call to H(D, D), whether it is simulated or not.

> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.

-- 
joes