Re: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth --- V4

On 8/19/24 8:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/19/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-18 12:48:32 +0000, olcott said:

>
x86utm takes the compiled Halt7.obj file of this c program
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Thus making all of the code of HHH directly available to
DDD and itself. HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.

>
It is not an emulation of DDD if the execution differs from a
real execution of DDD.
>

 *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
*specified as unspecified*
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 _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]
 *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
 X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 language
Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD
Z = DDD never stops running
 My claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
 void EEE()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
 HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of DDD the same
way that HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of EEE.
 

Remember, you said: Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
specified as unspecified
Therefore HHHn can NOT correctly emulate DDD past the call HHH instruction, because it doesn't HAVE the instruciton of the PROGRAM DDD (which is what you emulate) since it doesn't have the instruction at 000015D2.
The contents of the memory at 000015D2 can not be accessable to HHHn, as the input is described as DDD and not DDDn, so the input doesn't change between instances, and thus CAN'T contain that memory that changes, and thus is not valid to be part of the input.
Thus we also have that HHH∞ can not exist, so both your premises just fail to be possible.
Sorry, you are just repeating your error because apparently you just can't learn.