Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0

Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott:

This shows all of the steps of HH0 simulating DDD
calling a simulated HH0 simulating DDD
 https://liarparadox.org/HH0_(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
*Some of the key instructions are color coded*
GREEN---DebugStep Address
RED-----HH Address
YELLOW--All of the DDD instructions
CYAN----Return from DebugStep to Decide_Halting_HH
 _DDD()
[000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
[000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
[000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
[000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
[000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
 Exactly which step of DDD emulated by H0 was emulated
incorrectly such that this emulation would be complete?
AKA DDD emulated by H0 reaches machine address [000020b3]
  

If the simulation of a program with a loop of 5 iterations is aborted after 3 iterations, all instructions are correctly simulated. Nevertheless, it is an incorrect simulation, because it should simulate up to the final state of the program.
Similarly, if a simulator which aborts after 2 cycles of recursive simulation of it self, it simulates only 1 of the 2 cycles of itself. So, it is incorrect, not because one instruction was simulated incorrectly, but because it did not simulate up to the final state of the simulated self.
In other words, H0 is required to halt. If it does halt indeed, than a correct simulation can show the 'ret' instruction. We know that your simulation cannot do that. Your own words explain why it can't: the simulated self runs one cycle behind the simulator. That explains why the simulation is incorrect and aborts too soon.
So, when you ask which step was emulated incorrectly, you only show that you don't understand what emulation is.
Stop talking about it. It is over your head.
I am afraid that these simple facts are over your head. I wonder what your reaction will be:
Shouting, complaining about change of subject, claiming that I do not understand it, or again a baseless repetition of the claim?
Whatever, it is not probable that it will show any insight in this matter with a reasonable response.