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

On 6/23/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

The subject line is not quite correct. The execution trace is not
195 pages long, only 159 pages. In the beginning of the file there
is other material, mainly several disaasembled functions, many of
which do nothing.
 Several points in the trace are incorrect.
 On 2024-06-20 00:00:48 +0000, olcott said:
 

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]

 That code is not from the mentined trace file. In that file _DDD()
is at the addresses 2093..20a4. According to the trace no instruction
at the address is executed (because that address points to the last byte
of a three byte instruction.
 

In order to make my examples I must edit the code
and this changes the addresses of some functions.
When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see
that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to
H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The point is that the call from DDD to H0(DDD) cannot
possibly return to DDD correctly emulated by HHH.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer