Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the
 execution trace
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:34:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <v83i3s$3gvj7$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me>
 <0amdndFJSZSzYD77nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8102f$2vo8u$1@dont-email.me> <v82vi5$3dq41$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8307o$3dftr$8@dont-email.me>
 <aac579ac4d55e9a06a4020aabc4df13525d70325@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 21:34:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c4ee90cee71e7f0114aee78a4820d739";
	logging-data="3702375"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19V35IEji7+P4JFiQdZw/SN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ErYpC2IN0q58Zx3ZBGNTRpRdTLQ=
In-Reply-To: <aac579ac4d55e9a06a4020aabc4df13525d70325@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3767

On 7/27/2024 2:06 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:29:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/27/2024 9:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.jul.2024 om 22:14 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/26/2024 2:46 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 26/07/2024 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> This is meant for Mike, Joes and Fred don't have the technical
>>>>>> competence to understand it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard might be able to understand it yet the fact that he is stuck
>>>>>> in rebuttal mode makes any understanding that he may have utterly
>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike: It seems that HHH has been a pure function of its inputs and
>>>>>> never has provided data downward to its slaves that corrupts their
>>>>>> halt status decision. They don't even make a halt status decision
>>>>>> thus cannot make a corrupted one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the first two claims are literally untrue - outer HHH
>>>>> effectively uses the static mutable data to pass flags to the inner
>>>>> HHH that modify its behaviour.  The Root flag below is derived from
>>>>> the actual static data and causes inner HHH to totally skip its own
>>>>> abort logic!
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to acknowledge this, but claim it does not matter for
>>>>> various reasons, because whatever mistakes you are making, what
>>>>> finally gets printed out is saying the right thing!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If HHH gets the correct answer in an impure way then it only counts
>>>> that it gets it in an impure way if it is impossible to get in a pure
>>>> way. This makes it possible for HHH to get this answer in a pure way:
>>>>
> 
>>> In a similar way we can create an HHH that is able to reach the return
>>> of DDD.
>> Any emulation of DDD by HHH such that DDD reaches its return instruction
>> is an incorrect emulation.
> That would mean the unemulated DDD doesn't return.
> 

(1) You must have expert knowledge of the x86 language.
(2) You must carefully study the actual execution trace.

If anyone did this in the last three years they would
have known I was correct three years ago.

DDD correctly emulated by HHH does have freaking
different behavior than DDD correctly emulated by HHH1.

You can't freaking ignore the fact that DDD calls HHH
in recursive emulation and DDD does not call HHH1
in recursive emulation *WITHOUT BEING GOD DAMNED LIAR*

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer