Re: The actual code of HHH

Op 01.mrt.2025 om 01:41 schreef olcott:

On 2/28/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.feb.2025 om 22:42 schreef olcott:

>
It is flat out dishonest to change the subject away
from DD emulated by HHH.
>

>
It is flat out incorrect to suggest that this DD is a different one. There is only one finite string, describing only one behaviour.

 It is a verified fact that the directly executed DD has a
different execution trace than DD emulated by HHH.
 People try to get away with saying this is wrong are dumbfounded
when I challenge them to provide the correct execution trace
of DD emulated by HHH.
 _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]
 It is perfectly fine to say that you just don't understand
that. What is terribly wrong is for you to know that you
don't understand that and claim that I am incorrect.
 When we hypothesize that the code at machine address
0000213c is an x86 emulator then we know that DD
remains stuck in recursive emulation and cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
 

If Olcott really has only a few weeks left to complete his proof, he should continue with the next step. He is repeating this for several months and there is no progress.
Let's agree that Olcott's HHH indeed fails to reach the 'ret' instruction of the finite string that, when given for direct execution has no problem to reach the 'ret' instruction.
What is the next step? What does this failure of HHH imply?
As far as I can see, it is only more evidence for the halting theorem.