Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar

On 11/28/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/28/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/28/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/28/2024 9:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/28/24 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:

>
It has always been the same code dipshit.
Your weasel word intentional deception may get
you sent straight to actual Hell.
>

>
And your code never meet your requirement, so you have just been living your life as a lie,
>

>
_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]
>
DDD emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "ret"
instruction final halt state.

>
But that DDD CAN'T be emulated more than 4 instructions by ANY pure function, as you can't emulate past the call HHH instruction.
>

 You just aren't paying any attention at all or are woefully
inaccurate in your word choice. HHH1 does emulate all of DDD.
HHH1 <is> a pure function.
 

HHH1 can't emulate what you are defining as the input either, as the input has NO correct emulation past the call HHH instruction at 217A, as the contents of 000015D2 is not provided, and looking at that location in the current memory makes the "emulator" not a pure function of its input as required.
HHH1 can only emulate the input when it has been "fixed" by adding the code of HHH and all it calls, and for that fixed input, we see that HHH is just incorrect about that, and your logic just breaks.