Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty

On 2/22/25 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:

>

I have given everyone here all of the complete source code for a few
years

True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that
particular code.

Every post that I have been talking about for two or more years has
referred to variations of that same code.

Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting something
new and fresh.

As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge my key
points I will be done.

Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other.
>

Let's start with a root point.
All of the other points validate this root point.
*Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
*the non-halt status of DD*

Since DD halts, that's dead in the water.
>

>
Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man
deception aside:
>
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate
normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
>

>
Only because that statement is based on a false premise.
>
Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement is just a fabrication of your imagination.

 *Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified*

Right, and since every instruction (except the final return) specifies to execute the next instruction, it is NEVER a "correct simulation" to abort the simulaition unless the instruction will cause your computer to actually lock up or self-distruct.

It cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that the machine code specifies. That most people here are clueless about
x86 machine code is far less than no rebuttal at all.

Right, so the simulation of the input below requires that the call at address 0000213c to be followed by the simulation of the contents of the memory location 000015c3.
Since you exclude that as part of the input, such a simulation is impossible, or at least a violtion of the requirements to be a pure function.
If you include that memory as part of the input, then the code for HHH is fixed, and you can't change it when asking your "what if" question, so the "alternate HHH" needs to see that exact same input, so the alternate HHH needs to be put at some other address, like HHH1, which shows that the simulation of the input COULD be completed, it is just that HHH fails to do so.
This makes you "claims" just blantent pathological lies.

 _DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
 When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot
possibly return to the emulator, conclusively proving
that

Sure it can, if the emulator is a correct emulator, since the HHH that DD calls was defined to abort its emulation and return 0.

 DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate
normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
 Assuming that it does return is simply stupid.
 

The problem is you base your logic on bald face lies, since your HHH doesn't do a correct simulation.
All you are doing is proving you are an idiot, and are too stupid to see your error.
If I was wrong, you could point out the exact point I made an error.
Your biggest problem seems to be that you don't understand the meaning of the word "correct", but think that being wrong is allowed to still be called correct if you can give an excuse why you couldn't do what was needed.
Sorry, but that attitude will just get you the failing grade in life.