Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Kicking the straw-man deception out on its ass

On 2025-03-03 18:33:52 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/3/2025 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-02 21:21:04 +0000, olcott said:
 

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]
 DD emulated by HHH according to the behavior that DD
specifies cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
and terminate normally.

 DD does not fully specify a behaviour. The behaviour depends on HHH,
which is not a part of DD. If HHH returns 0 then DD specifies a non-
terminatingg behaviour but that is a big if.

 A stipulated premise is that HHH emulates its input.

Sometimes, though it iw never stipulated that that emulation be complete.
At other times you have assumed that HHH is as shown at
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c .

This is proven by the actual code that no one here
understands.

No, the code does not prove the stipulation (or anything).
--
Mikko