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

On 9/8/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/8/2024 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/7/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-06 11:20:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/6/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:58:27 +0000, olcott said:

>
_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]
>
Anyone that is not dumber than a box of rocks can tell
that machine address 0000217f is unreachable for every
DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language where HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.

>
Anyone who really knows either x86 assembly or machine langage or
C can see that the machine address 217f is unreachachable only if
the program at 000015d2, named HHH, does not return.
>

>
That is not exactly true. There is a directly executed HHH
that always returns and a DDD emulated by HHH that calls
an emulated HHH that never returns.

>
There is only one DDD. The emulated DDD is the same as the directly
executed DDD. If HHH emulates someting else then that is not DDD.

>
I have conclusively proven that DDD, DD, D, PP and P
do have different behavior within pathological relationships
than outside of pathological relationships at least 1000
times in the last three years.

>
Saying "I have conclusively proven" wihtout actually proving anything
is not convincing.
>

 Now there is a permanent link to the full file of the complete proof
https://www.liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD).pdf

Which just proves that you don't understand what a CORRECT emulation of an input is.

 We can know that HHH really is emulating itself emulating DDD
because the execution trace of this second emulation matches
the x86 source code of DDD line-by-line.

But that doesn't prove what you claim, and SHOULD NOT be listed as part of the "Emulation of the input" since it isn't what the input did

 Here is the C source-code that generated that x86 code.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 That these things may be over your head does not provide
the slightest trace of evidence that the above is not
compete proof.
 

No, it just proves that you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot that donsn't undetstand what he is talking about is has shown an inability to learn it even after it has been pointed out to him many times.
Sorry, that is just the truth. You DON'T KNOW enough of what you talk about, and refuse to learn it for your words to mean what you want them to.