Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Failure to meet this challenge proves that all of my reviewers are wrong Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 19:50:59 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:51:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2727696"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5183 Lines: 120 On 3/3/25 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > That you can't even understand that it does prove > those things shows even less technical competence. The C code proves that HHH will abort its emulation, and thus is not a correct emulator > > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c > The above code proves that: > (a) HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DD. No, it doesn't, it aborts > > (b) DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly > reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. Since you HHH doesn't do that, it isn't shown by that code. The fact that a DIFFERENT program DD calling a DIFFERENT HHH will never return is irrelvent, as that different HHH fails to decider. > > (c) The behavior of the input to HHH(DD) is different > than the behavior of the directly executed DD because > DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation and the directly > executed DD does not call HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. And where is that difference? You have implicitly admited this is a lie, because you can't show the first instruction actually emulated where the difference occurs. Your problem is your claim is based on unsupporeted (and unsupportable) lies and make-beleive. All you are doing is proving you are just a pathological lying idiot that doesn't care about the truth. > > This code proves that it reports integers > 5 > > void GT5(int X) > { >   if (X > 5) >     printf("X is greater than five\n"); > } > > Irrelevent.