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

Op 09.mrt.2025 om 14:11 schreef olcott:

On 3/9/2025 4:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.mrt.2025 om 18:47 schreef olcott:

On 3/8/2025 9:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.mrt.2025 om 15:09 schreef olcott:

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

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

  _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 correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
 

Why repeating things we agree with? We agree that HHH correctly reports that it cannot possibly complete the simulation to its end. An end that exists as proven by direct execution and world-class simulators of exactly the same finite string as input.
So, what next.

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

Yes, even if there are error in the program, it does what it does.

>
There is no error.
>

>
That is a claim, not a proof. Many errors have been pointed out, but the program was not corrected. Without a proof of correctness, a program does not prove anything.

 All the reported "errors" are only your failure  to understand the code.
 

The inability to point to a misunderstanding is no rebuttal. It is even less a proof of correctness of the program.