Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Failure to meet this challenge proves that all of my reviewers are wrong
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 12:08:41 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <vq6jf9$1qqd3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq1qnr$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, 04 Mar 2025 11:08:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7e56ab57382a496fff06f6363741e829";
	logging-data="1927587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dTx4/T/eRun5deVukvHOF"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ln1ubSD/NBWgtxRujXHBW9HhipM=

On 2025-03-03 19:46:30 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

No, it does not. That you can insist that it would indicates that
you don't know what the word means.

> That you can't even understand that it does prove
> those things shows even less technical competence.

One doesn't need much techincal competence to tell the difference
between a C code and a proof.

-- 
Mikko