Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined

On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

>
I told you too damn many times that all this stuff
is in the same global memory space of the compiled
object file.
>

 And thus either all the global memory space is what is defined to be the input, and thus every case you think of is a different input,

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
Correctly emulated is defined as emulated according to the
semantics of the x86 language.
The question does the machine code of DDD (the program under test)
reach is own "ret" instruction when correctly emulated by HHH?
is not effected by this.

or your "decider" fails to meet the requirements of being the pure function that you have admited to be a known base requirement.
 

We cannot move on to any other point while you continue
to deny the proven facts of the first point.
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
This first point is this:
Would HHH be correct to reject DD as non-halting?

Sorry, you are just proving that everything you say is likely a lie, because you just can remember the meaning of the words so you create your own, INCONSISTENT meaning as you go.
>

You cannot show any example of that above.

Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer