Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof

On 2024-08-02 11:11:59 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/2/2024 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-01 13:29:24 +0000, olcott said:
 

*Here is the full trace where nothing is hidden*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

 On page 36 of that "trace"
   [0000128c][0010379f][00000018] e8e6f4ffff call 00000777
is not followed by the trace of 00000777. Instead the trace continues
with the next instruction after the return without any comment about
the omission. Meaning of 00000777 is not told.
 

 The bottom line has always been (for three years now) that the
fact that the next lines of DDD, (and DD) have always been the
next lines that a correct x86 emulator would correctly emulate
proves that HHH (and HH) did emulate these lines correctly
*EVEN IF IT DID THIS BY WILD GUESS*

Per the meaning of "trace" the next trae line after a call instruction
is the treace line of the first instruction of the called program.
If you want to make any exceptions they must be indicated in the
trace.
If you want ever to prove anything with your trace the proof must
demonstrate that the omitted details do what they need to do for
the proof to be valid.

Because of this all of the requests for a full execution trace
have never been more than sadistic trollish head games.

We have already understood that your traces have never been more
than sadistic trollish head games. Serious honest purposes would
be satisfied with a couple of output calls.
-
Mikko