Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/9/25 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2025 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/9/25 8:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 10/05/2025 00:02, olcott wrote:

Correctly emulating one or more instructions <is>
the correct emulation of 1 or more instructions
of DD. This is a truism.

>
No, it's not. Correct emulation would entail accurately simulating the whole of DDD's behaviour.
>

  This is just typical Olcottian behavior, Actual definitons don't matter to him, which is what makes so much of what he says just turn out to be lies when they are interpreted (as they must be) with the actual definitions.

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 Try to show how DDD simulated by HHH according to the
rules of the x86 language reaches its own "ret"
instruction final state and you already know that
you will fail. You dodge this question so that
you can remain disagreeable.

The problem is that HHH can not emulate this input past the call 000015d2 instruction, as that isn't part of the input, and you need to restrict HHH to be a pure function (and thus can't use memory not derived from the input) or my static variable hack lets us create an HHH that can emulate that input to the return instruciton as I have shown.
Sorry, you are just caught in your lies and shown that you can't actually prove what you claim, and you seem to know it at some level as you just refuse to respond to the errors, thus accpeting them as valid.