Re: Failure to meet this challenge proves that all of my reviewers are wrong

On 3/3/25 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/3/2025 6:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-02 19:06:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/2/2025 12:38 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.mrt.2025 om 15:42 schreef olcott:

HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that emulates
the x86 machine code located at the address of a function
using a fully functional x86 emulator.
>
When HHH recognizes a non-terminating pattern in the
execution trace of its emulated input it aborts this
emulation and returns 0.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
_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]
>
I challenged everyone here to provide the machine address
by machine address (AKA line by line) execution trace
of DD correctly emulated by HHH that reaches its own
"ret" instruction.

>
Olcott could as well challenge everyone to draw a correct square circle.
>

>
No one made any attempt to do this because they know that
this would prove that they are stupidly wrong to say that
my trace is incorrect.
>

>
No one will attempt to draw a square circle. Does that imply that it is wrong to say that another failed attempt to draw a square circle is incorrect?
>
Similarly, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

>
This C code conclusively proves that HHH does correctly
emulate self emulating DD correctly.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

>
A C code does not prove. Only a proof would prove.
>

 The C code proves exactly these things.
That you can't even understand that it does prove
those things shows even less technical competence.

The C code proves that HHH will abort its emulation, and thus is not a correct emulator

 https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
The above code proves that:
(a) HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DD.

No, it doesn't, it aborts

 (b) DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

Since you HHH doesn't do that, it isn't shown by that code.
The fact that a DIFFERENT program DD calling a DIFFERENT HHH will never return is irrelvent, as that different HHH fails to decider.

 (c) The behavior of the input to HHH(DD) is different
than the behavior of the directly executed DD because
DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation and the directly
executed DD does not call HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.

And where is that difference? You have implicitly admited this is a lie, because you can't show the first instruction actually emulated where the difference occurs.
Your problem is your claim is based on unsupporeted (and unsupportable) lies and make-beleive.
All you are doing is proving you are just a pathological lying idiot that doesn't care about the truth.

 This code proves that it reports integers > 5
 void GT5(int X)
{
   if (X > 5)
     printf("X is greater than five\n");
}
 

Irrelevent.