Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:29:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2024 11:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:58:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2024 10:03 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:32:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2024 8:09 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:53:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2024 6:09 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:55:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly,
you are wrong.
            int H(ptr p, ptr i);
            int main()
            {
              return H(main, 0);
            }
You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it
does not return.

main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.

As a matter of fact, H does abort it. H then returns to main,
which then stops running.

main correctly simulated by H never returns.

I was talking about main itself.

That is not the one that HHH examines.

Huh? HHH examines main. Sure, it doesn’t /simulate/ the return.

The x86utm operating system spawns a separate process so that
H can emulate another different instance of D in this separate process.
H must call DebugTrace()
to switch process contexts to emulate one more instruction of D.

Oh, there should also be different instances of H.

There is more than one main() process. One of them cannot possibly
halt and the other one halts.

That makes no sense. They have exactly the same code.

It makes no sense only if you are totally clueless of operating system
process contexts.

What is their difference?

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.