Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/5/24 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:

>

Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH reaches its own machine
address 0000217f.

By HHH returning, which we are guaranteed from its definition as a
decider.

How the F--- Does the emulated HHH return?

I don’t know, you claim it’s a decider!
>

 You KEEP TRYING TO CHEAT by erasing the context !!!
 _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]
 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)
then
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)...
 DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own
machine address 0000217f.

000015d2, which is part of the program DDD, as that includes all the code used by DDD.
What, are you still that stupid to not be able to learn the definitions?
Look at your 200 page trace.
Replace the 4 lines at the begining with the addresses of DDD insteand of the addresss of main, and similarly the end, and you get the exact emulation that a correctly emulating HHH would do of THIS DDD (that calls the HHH that it does).
VOLA, your trace of DDD correctly emulated reaching the final state.
The fact that the HHH that it calls doesn't do it just proves that your HHH fails to meet its requirement.
Remember, the correct emulation of the DDD emulated by HHH is NOT the same thing as the emulation of DDD done by this HHH.
You are just proving your ignorance by repeating that error.

 The directly executed HHH correctly determines that
its emulated DDD must be aborted because DDD keeps
*THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in recursive emulation.
 

Nope, it *INCORRECTLY* determines that its emulaiton of DDD is the behavor of DDD, because it was programmed by an idiot that doesn't know the difference between knowledge and truth.
Sorry, that is just the proven facts.