Re: The actual code of HHH

Am Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:41:08 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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

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

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.

Yes, HHH emulates DD verifiably incorrect.

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.

It is the trace of HHH1 emulating DD (where DD calls HHH).

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.

HHH is not an emulator though.

When we add the additional complexity that HHH also aborts this sequence
at some point then every level of recursive emulation stops. This does
not enable any DD to ever reach its "ret" instruction.

Yes it does, because HHH returns to DD.

If this is beyond your technical competence THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME WRONG

That this is beyond your technical competence does not make you right.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.