Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence

On 6/12/25 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2025 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/25 8:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2025 4:06 PM, anthk wrote:

On 2025-06-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
of DDD emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1.
>
int main()
{
    HHH1(DDD);
}
>
Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by
HHH1 diverges as soon as HHH begins emulating itself
emulating DDD.
>
*From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below*
DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH
[00002183] push ebp               [00002183] push ebp
[00002184] mov ebp,esp            [00002184] mov ebp,esp
[00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD
[0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH
*HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD once, these match*
>
The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at
the machine address of 00002183.
>
The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at
the machine address of 00002190.
>
00002183 != 00002190
>
_DDD()
[00002183] 55             push ebp
[00002184] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002186] 6883210000     push 00002183 ; push DDD
[0000218b] e833f4ffff     call 000015c3 ; call HHH
[00002190] 83c404         add esp,+04
[00002193] 5d             pop ebp
[00002194] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002194]
>
_main()
[000021a3] 55             push ebp
[000021a4] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[000021a6] 6883210000     push 00002183 ; push DDD
[000021ab] e843f3ffff     call 000014f3 ; call HHH1
[000021b0] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021b3] 33c0           xor eax,eax
[000021b5] 5d             pop ebp
[000021b6] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0020) [000021b6]
>
   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
   address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  ========== =============
<main is executed>
[000021a3][0010382d][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; main()
[000021a4][0010382d][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; main()
[000021a6][00103829][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
[000021ab][00103825][000021b0] e843f3ffff call 000014f3 ; call HHH1
</main is executed>
>
New slave_stack at:1038d1
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138d9
>
<DDD emulated by HHH1>
[00002183][001138c9][001138cd] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of HHH1
[00002184][001138c9][001138cd] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; DDD of HHH1
[00002186][001138c5][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
[0000218b][001138c1][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH
</DDD emulated by HHH1>
>
New slave_stack at:14e2f9
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:15e301
>
<DDD emulated by HHH>
[00002183][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of HHH[0]
[00002184][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; DDD of HHH[0]
[00002186][0015e2ed][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
[0000218b][0015e2e9][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH
<DDD emulated by HHH>
>
New slave_stack at:198d21  DDD emulated by HHH
*This is the beginning of the divergence of the behavior*
*HHH is emulating itself emulating DDD, HHH1 never does that*
>
<DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself>
[00002183][001a8d19][001a8d1d] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of HHH[1]
[00002184][001a8d19][001a8d1d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; DDD of HHH[1]
[00002186][001a8d15][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
[0000218b][001a8d11][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH
</DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself>
>
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
HHH returns to caller
>
<DDD emulated by HHH1>
[00002190][001138c9][001138cd] 83c404     add esp,+04 ; DDD of HHH1
[00002193][001138cd][000015a8] 5d         pop ebp     ; DDD of HHH1
[00002194][001138d1][0003a980] c3         ret         ; DDD of HHH1
</DDD emulated by HHH1>
>
<main is executed>
[000021b0][0010382d][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04 ; main()
[000021b3][0010382d][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax ; main()
[000021b5][00103831][00000018] 5d         pop ebp     ; main()
[000021b6][00103835][00000000] c3         ret         ; main()
</main is executed>
Number of Instructions Executed(352831) == 5266 Pages
>

>
Lean Lisp first, ideally with Scheme. Go get Concrete Abstractions
and learn about recursivity and taill call optimization.

>
Tail optimization would at best convert recursive emulation
into an infinite loop.

>
Only for the DDD that calls the HHH that never aborts.
>
Sorry, but you admission to the facts that show that all your claims are just lies based on the category error of you not making HHH actually a fixed programs, and thus DDD isn't a program, and thus not something that CAN be correctly simulated, just shows that you don't care about what the truth actualy is.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own "return" statement final halt state, thus is correctly
rejected by HHH as non-halting.

>
Something that can not happen by your stipulations,
>
Sorry, you have ADMITTED that this statement can't be true by admitting that DDD isn't amoundg the category of things that can be simulated.
>
>

>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
The point of all of this is that the halting problem's
counter-example input is also correctly rejected as
non-halting thus refuting the conventional HP proof.
>

>
No it isn't, and the fact that you have admitted to the facts that show that you have just been lying all these years about your system being the equivalent of the halting problem proof, just shows how little you care about truth.
>

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

WHich gives a compiler error of undefined symbol HHH.
and a similar linker error as you have stated that "the input" does not contain that code, and thus "the input" isn't a program.
The "the input" is just invalid and your whole argument a LIE.
Just restating your error does NOT refute the error in your logic that was pointed out,

 HHH(DD) correctly rejects its input as specifying
a non-halting sequence of configurations.
DD *is* the HP proof counter-example input.

No it doesn't, because, as you have previously stipulated, DD isn't evern a program, as it doesn't include the code of HHH, and thus it is NEITHER Halting or Non-Halting because those only apply to programs.
Fix the issue by including the code of HHH as part of DDD (which you imply you do by saying they are in the same memory space, and apparently HHH actually takes ALL of the memory space as its input) then we have the fact that since HHH(DD) rejects its input thinking (incorrectly) that it specifies a non-halting sequence of "configurations" (you must mean program states) when in fact, the sequence of "configurations" specified don't stop when HHH stops its emulation, but continue through the sequence of HHH deciding to abort its simulation, and returning 0 to DD which then halts.

 

You arguement effective begins with a statement with as much truth as the statement that 1 is the color BLUE.
>
>

 

Note, you didn't handle this problem, which is still there.
In fact, you seem to be admitting that you can't actually handle any of the problems pointed out, as you keep on deflecting from them.
Clearly, all you are doing is proving to the world that Peter Olcott doesn't understand how logic works, or the meaning of the words he uses, but thinks that lying is a good form of logic.