Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict correctly

On 7/30/2024 1:48 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:

On 7/30/2024 9:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jul.2024 om 16:21 schreef olcott:

On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) show the same non-halting
behavior pattern in their derived execution traces of their
inputs.

>
Hard to believe as their behaviour is so different and you don't
say what pattern the see.

>
*Its all in the part that you erased*
>
*Infinite_Recursion correctly emulated by HHH*
*THREE lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934
[0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
[0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
*FOUR lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
[00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
[00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
>

>
We all see the differences between these two.

>
They both correctly predict behavior that must be aborted to
prevent the infinite execution of the simulating halt decider.
>

 Except that the prediction for the second one is wrong. The simulation of an aborting and halting function, like HHH, does not need to be aborted.

I proved otherwise. When the abort code is commented out
then it keeps repeating again and again, thus conclusively
proving that is must be aborted or HHH never halts.

This is proved when it is simulate by HHH1. HHH aborts after two recursions, which is not an infinite execution.
 We know you really, really wants it to be correct. So, you are cheating by suppressing part of the trace, in order to hide the conditional branch instructions in the second case. But no matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer