Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review

On 6/3/2024 9:57 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 04/06/2024 03:18, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

An execution trace that is produced by a program that is incorrect /proves/ nothing whatsoever. I don't need to look at your proof, as I was commenting on the value of your program output AS PROOF.
>

>
I provided the execution trace that HH derives
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*

>
Then why did the trace not follow the call to H?
>

>
HH(DD,DD) the trace does follow the call to HH(DD,DD)
and fully simulates itself simulating DD.

 Yes HH does simulate the call to HH(DD,DD) and certain instructions within HH, although because you filter those trace entries out, nobody can check that.
 The point is it simulates THE WRONG INSTRUCTIONS within HH as discussed in other posts.
 

I conclusively proved that HH correctly simulated the instructions of
DD and I also proved that the simulated HH also correctly simulated the
instructions of DD by the fact that the provided execution traces by both the outer and the inner nested simulations exactly matched the behavior that the x86 source code of D specifies, line-by-line.
_DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH

When HH simulates itself, the instructions simulated must be the actual instructions that "outer" HH would execute, because that's what simulation means.  What your HH does is simulate completely different instructions inside a conditional branch that asks "Am I being simulated?".  That is Simply Wrong, in a way that should be obvious without repeated explanation.  Trace output from a Simply Wrong program is not evidence for your claims.
  Mike.
 

HH(DD,DD) only gets the machine address of DD as input, that
is its only basis. When DD calls HH then the outer HH simply
simulates whatever this call specifies it doesn't even know
that it is calling itself.
With your honesty and expertise we may finally get closure on this.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer