Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)

On 8/29/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/29/2024 12:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 29.aug.2024 om 16:07 schreef olcott:

On 8/29/2024 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-28 12:08:06 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/28/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-27 12:44:31 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/27/2024 3:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.aug.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:

This is intended to be a stand-alone post that does not
reference anything else mentioned in any other posts.
>
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]
>
When we assume that:
(a) HHH is an x86 emulator that is in the same memory space as DDD.
(b) HHH emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>
then we can see that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly get past
its own machine address 0000217a.
>

>
>
Yes, we see. In fact DDD is not needed at all.

>
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>
You should also point a link to the equivocation fallacy. You use it
more often than straw man.

>
Isomorphism is not equivocation

>
The use of HHH for many purposes (a specific program, an unpsecified
memeber of a set of programs, a hypothetical program) is.
>
Your first posting looked like you were going to apply equivocation
later in the discussion. Now, after several later messages, it seems
that you want to apply the fallacy of "moving the goal posts" instead.
>

>
void EEE()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
>
HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of EEE would
be if this HHH never aborted its emulation of EEE.
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would
be if this HHH never aborted its emulation of DDD.

Which is incorrect, because HHH is not allowed to change the input. The simulating HHH may abort, but it may not ignore the fact that the input (the simulated HHH) is coded to abort when it sees the 'special condition'. Otherwise it would decide about a non-input, which is not allowed.
>

 *I told you this too many times so you must be a liar*
No DDD ever reaches its "return" instruction no matter
what-the-Hell that HHH does, thus DDD CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT.

But thehy *DO*
It is the EMULATION of DDD by HHH that never reaches the return statement, not DDD itself.
You are just using the wrong definitions. showing your stupidity.

 

In the same way as HHH is not allowed to change the code of EEE when it aborts EEE. The simulating HHH may abort and predict the behaviour of the *unchanged* input would be.
>
In other words: HHH should process its input as if it was not its own code. In fact, that is what HHH1 does and that is correct.
>