Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 9/10/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:No, YOUR CLAIM is counter factual , because you HHH doesn't actualy DO a correct emualtion, as it has been programmed to abort before it gets there.On 2024-09-09 18:19:26 +0000, olcott said:*That is counter-factual and you cannot possibly show otherwise*
>On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said: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:New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the mapping from>
its finite string input to the behavior that this finite string
specifies.
A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only whether
that behaviour is finite or infinite.
>What does simulating it change about that?The directly executed HHH is a decider.>>Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped>
>
Hence HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
HHH terminates,
os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid
DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return and
therefore is not a ceicder.
If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.
>
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original
behaviour.
>
_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]
>
A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even
if this machine code catches the machine on fire.
>
It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to
reach machine address 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
A correct emulation of DDD does reach the machine address 0000217f and
a little later 00002183.
*Here are the verified facts*
*any attempt to show otherwise cannot possibly succeed*
DDD emulated by the directly executed HHH derived these steps:But a CORRECT emulation of the input would emulate that HHH(DDD) that DDD called and see that it will return to DDD, as it return to all callers.
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
thus HHH emulated by the directly executed HHH cannot possibly
derive and other steps and I have proved that it does not
derive any other steps by the actual execution trace by a world
class x86 emulator libx86emu.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.