Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals

On 3/4/25 9:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.mrt.2025 om 04:07 schreef olcott:

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]
>
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

I wonder why Olcott keeps repeating that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, where the direct execution or world-class simulators have no problem to reach the 'ret' instruction of exactly the same finite string as input.

 The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
own "ret" instruction.

No, and the fact you claim that is just proof you don't understand what you are talking about.
If HHH doesn't do a correct emulation, asking how it does one is just insain, which apparently is what you are.
Your logic is just broken and reliant on the work of the "truth fairy" to make your false claims valid.

 

Is he proud of this failure of his HHH?
Why doesn't he change his HHH, e.g. by simulating the call to HHH with a replacement with the return value of HHH, so that he can reach the 'ret' instruction? It is such a simple modification and it will fix at least the problem that the simulation does not reach the 'ret' instruction.