Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual code of HHH
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:54:32 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vpor68$2vaf3$7@dont-email.me>
References: <f73c3b97590a4d189e33a2cf255ed3337e56d3cf@i2pn2.org>
 <vpo6v9$2p51t$1@dont-email.me>
 <9b4f34b56d46274d2ef819d313770251aff04b65@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 05:54:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f1b30fca70f728e62d75b9f119ac165f";
	logging-data="3123683"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XLmxB6c0X6zNd2sJCB95X"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6aFjK7tHJpHzSk+F46hKl58O3BM=
In-Reply-To: <9b4f34b56d46274d2ef819d313770251aff04b65@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250226-4, 2/26/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3599

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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> 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.

I am writing this for my posthumous reviewers.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer