Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH provides the correct halt status criteria

On 6/8/24 8:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 12:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 21:48:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

*That no counter-example to the following exists proves that it is true*

>
Not wihout a proof that no counter-example exists.
>

 I incorporate by reference
(a) The x86 language
(b) The notion of an x86 emulator
 (c) I provide this complete function

So?

 void DDD(int (*x)())
{
   HH(x, x);
}
 _DDD()
[00001de2] 55         push ebp
[00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH
[00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001df5] 5d         pop ebp
[00001df6] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
 Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
instruction.

Which just proves you don't understand what a proof is.
You need to SHOW the connection, not just claim something.
You didn't reference ANY of the truth makers you said above.

 To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
(perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
 Try and show that the above sequence is incorrect, you
cannot because it is correct.
 

Which means you just proved that NO HH that meets your requirements can ever give an answer for this question.
You Claim this not to be true, so that just shows that your system is self-contradictory.
And the apparent issue is that you are changing your definition of "Correct Simulation" between the two.
Apparently quite intentionally, so it can be considered an act of deception, commonly called a LIE.