Re: And the Richer Petard Horror Show resumes ... CORRECT

On 10/10/24 8:50 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/10/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
>

Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:

On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

... after a short break.

>

    Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.

>

In other words, you don't understand the concept of defense of the truth.

>
Maybe, but continuously calling your debating opponent a liar, and doing
so in oversized upper case, goes beyond truth and comes perilously close
to stalking.

>
Calling a liar a liar is fully justified. I don't know how often it
needs be done but readers of a liar may want to know that they are
reading a liar.
>

 The fact that no one can even point out a single mistake
conclusively proves that any lying is not on my side of
the dialogue.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer.
Each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
 Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
 *Fully operational code is here*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 

It detracts from the substance of your posts, and makes
them, for me at least, thoroughly unpleasant to read.

>
You probably needn't read them. As soon you find out that they repeat
the same over and over, neither correcting their substantial errors
not improving their arguments you have read enough.
>

 Although it seems that I am repeating myself I am actually
making these same points clearer and clearer so that anyone
with a BSCS can see that I am necessarily correct.

The fact that errors HAVE been pointed out and ignored proves you to be a liar.

 In the last three years I went from providing the machine language
trace of DD emulated by HH to describing the C language trace of
DDD emulated by HHH in a single simple English sentence.
 

And are still wrong, because your "emulation" of the call HHH(DDD) doesn't match the actual behavior of a call to HHH(DDD), and you only excuse is that it will be different when you can't explain HOW it will be different.
I think you gave up the machine language trace because it proves you wrong, as you couldn't point out the machine instruction where the difference occure.

int DD(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 

Which since you claim H(DD,DD) correctly returns 0, that means that DD(DD) will halt since the H(DD,DD) that it calls will also return 0, and thus D will halt.
This your H that you claim is correct is wrong.
You failure to answer my question about how you definition that you use match the actual definitions just proves that you know you are just lying.

_DD()
[00002142] 55         push ebp
[00002143] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00002145] 51         push ecx
[00002146] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00002149] 50         push eax
[0000214a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000214d] 51         push ecx
[0000214e] e8cff2ffff call 00001422
[00002153] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00002156] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002159] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000215d] 7402       jz 00002161
[0000215f] ebfe       jmp 0000215f
[00002161] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002164] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002166] 5d         pop ebp
[00002167] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00002167]
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 

And since you claim that HHH(DDD) is correct to return 0, then the DDD that calls HHH(DDD) will have that call return 0 and thus halt.
Thus, your HHH tha tyou claim correct is wrong.
Again, your failure to show