Re: behavior and description --- Peter Olcott's Rebuttals have been pure bluster V3

On 8/6/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/6/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/6/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/6/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 12:02 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:43:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:

Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction is a mandatory prerequisite to further
discussion.

>

There is nothing to discuss after agreeing with your conclusion.
>

Everyone remains convinced that HHH must report on the behavior of the
computation that itself is contained within and not the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.

>

The construction is not recursive if the description does not describe
the surrounding computation. And that behaviour cannot depend on the
decider, as they should all give the same answer.
>

>
That is far too vague.
>
DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics
of the x86 programming language specifies a single exact
sequence of state changes. None of these state changes
ends up at the x86 machine language address of the "ret"
instruction of DDD.
>

>
Which would be meaningful if HHH actual did a correct emulation of the

>
HHH does emulate the exact sequence that the machine code
of DDD specifies. This has been conclusively proven by
the execution traces that the two instances of HHH provide.

>
Nope, because it didn't emulate the call instruction properly.
>

>
It is proved that it does emulate the call instruction
properly by the correct execution trace of the second
DDD derived by the second HHH.

>
Nope, just proves you don't know what you are talking about.
>

 Because your rebuttals have always been pure bluster

No, YOUR rebuttal have been pure bluster that have avoided answering my challenges, thus effectively ADMITTING that you arte just a liar.

you have only used double-talk and misdirection to dodge
pointing out any mistake in the following:

How about the trace that HHH generates shouldn't start with the code of main, since that isn't what HHH starts simulating, thus your claims about the trace generate by HHH can not be supported by something elses trace.
Second, the CORRECT emulation of a "call" instruciton should show the instruction of the routine called.
Thus, a "Call 000015d2" *MUST* be followed by the instruction AT 000015d2, and not "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation"
Since you have just been repeating this smae ERROR over and over, you are just proving that you just don't care about the truth, but are just repeating your same LIES over and over and over, securing your place in Gehenna.

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 _main()
[00002192] 55         push ebp
[00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[000021a2] 50         push eax
[000021a3] 6843070000 push 00000743
[000021a8] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762
[000021ad] 83c408     add esp,+08
[000021b0] 33c0       xor eax,eax
[000021b2] 5d         pop ebp
[000021b3] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0034) [000021b3]
   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:1038c4
 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 [0000219f][00103820][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04
[000021a2][0010381c][00000000] 50         push eax
[000021a3][00103818][00000743] 6843070000 push 00000743
[000021a8][00103818][00000743] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762
Input_Halts = 0
[000021ad][00103820][00000000] 83c408     add esp,+08
[000021b0][00103820][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
[000021b2][00103824][00000018] 5d         pop ebp
[000021b3][00103828][00000000] c3         ret
Number of Instructions Executed(10069) == 150 Pages
 *I had no idea that Mike was doing this same thing*
 The former editor in chief of CASM did acknowledge
this to me. He said that was why he couldn't understand
what I was saying after many email exchanges.
 

My guess is he couldn't believe someone could be so stupid.