Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

On 3/9/25 9:25 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/9/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/8/25 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/8/25 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:01 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

The code proves otherwise
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

>
A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove that no
different program exists.
>

>
The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it
actually does.

>
The source code contains a finite sequence of truth preserving steps between axioms and a statement?

>
The source code 100% completely specifies every single detail
of exactly what it does on each specific input.
Saying that it does not do this is counter-factual.
>

>
In other words, the source code does not meet the definition of a proof, so your claim is false.

>
Dumb Bunny:
*Proof[0] is anything that shows that X is necessarily true*
*and thus impossibly false*
>
The source-code in Halt7.c combined with the input to HHH
conclusively proves every detail of the behavior of HHH on
this input. Disagreeing this is either foolish or dishonest.
>

>
A proof is a finite sequence of truth preserving steps between the axioms of a system and a true statement that show the statement is true.
>

>
Proof[math] tries unsuccessfully to inherit from proof[0].
I am stipulating that I have always been referring to proof[0].

>
And I am pointing out that it IS the same, it is just that you don't understand that "Show" implies FINITE.
>

>
In that single aspect you are correct.
Show that X is definitely true and thus impossibly false
by any means what-so-ever is not proof[math].

>
or proof[0], since you can not SHOW something "by any means" if those means are not showable due to not being finite.
>

>

You are just proving your stupidity by repeating your disproved claim.
>

>
If you cannot understand the Halt7.c conclusively proves[0]
the actual behavior of HHH(DD) this is merely your lack of
understanding and nothing more.
>
>

>
Sure I can understand what it does, as Halt7.c shows that the behavior of the input is to HALT since that is what DD will do when main calls it.
>

>
*WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU KNOW YOU WERE WRONG*
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>
>

>
But The HHH You are talking about doesn't do a correct simulation, so this statment is not applicable.
>

  _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]

WHich is *NOT* a program, as it has an external reference.

 *When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then*
 DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.

Wrong, because emulaiting for "N Steps" is NOT correctly emulation.
And. if HHH is DEFINED to only emulate N steps and return, then we KNOW that the correct emulation of the call to HHH MUST return.

 I am not going to address any other point until this
point is fully understood because the other points
cannot be understood until this one is understood.

You mean until someone accepts your lies, you can not build on them.
Sorry, You can't emulate what isn't provided, and your descirption of HHH doesn't match you emulation of it, as it is just incorret.

 *You have two choices every other reply will be totally ignored*
(1) Agree that the above is totally correct.
(2) Provide a line-by-line execution trace of the machine
code addresses of the above DD being correctly emulated by
HHH such that DD  reaches machine address 00002155.

No, that is a false dichotomy, showing your stupidity,

 Your very first words must do this, if you put these
words in a second paragraph I will never see  them.

No, my first words point out the ERROR in you problem, which until you correct them NOTHING you say can have any sense of correctness.

 The very first word must be "agreed" or a machine code address
I may not even see your second word if you do not do this.
 

In otherwords,. you are just admitting that you are not interested in finding the truth, only in finding a patsy for your fraud.'
Sorry, we are too smart for that, I suspect the Infernal Revenue Serivce is going to extract the needed penalty for your violations.