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

Op 30.jul.2024 om 22:05 schreef olcott:

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.

Only because you are cheating and not only change the simulator, but also the input.
The input is HHH that aborts and halts.
It is irrelevant that another input, the HHH, that does not abort does not halt.
But when the HHH that aborts and halts is correctly simulated, e.g. by HHH1, than we see that the simulation halts without the need to abort.
It is only because you keep dreaming of a HHH that does not abort, that you think an abort is needed for a HHH that *does* abort and halt.
Stop dreaming about the HHH that does not halt. Dreams are no substitute for logic proofs.