Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

Op 08.mei.2025 om 21:42 schreef olcott:

On 5/8/2025 2:04 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.mei.2025 om 19:00 schreef olcott:

On 5/8/2025 11:14 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 08/05/2025 06:33, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 08/05/2025 06:22, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 11:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 08/05/2025 02:20, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

Does there exist an HHH such that DDD emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the C programming language

>
Let's take a look.
>
The file is 1373 lines long, but don't worry, because I plan to stop at HHH's first departure from the rules of the C programming language (or at least the first departure I spot).
>
Turn in your songbook if you will to:
>
void CopyMachineCode(u8* source, u8** destination)
{
   u32 size;
   for (size = 0; source[size] != 0xcc; size++)
     ;
   *destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
   for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
   {
     Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
     *destination[N] = source[N];
   }
   ((u32*)*destination)[-1] = size;
   Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-1]: ", ((u32*)*destination) [-1]);
   Output("CopyMachineCode destination[-2]: ", ((u32*)*destination) [-2]);
};
>

>
deprecated.

>
It's not just deprecated. It's hopelessly broken.
>
Everybody makes mistakes, and one slip would be all very well, but you make essentially the same mistake --- writing to memory that your program doesn't own --- no fewer than four times in a single function.
>

I'll ignore the syntax error (a null statement at file scope is a rookie error).
>
Instead, let's jump straight to this line:
>
   *destination = (u8*) Allocate(size);
>
On line 79 of my copy of the code, we find:
>
u32* Allocate(u32 size) { return 0; }
>
In C, 0 is a null pointer constant, so Allocate returns a null pointer constant... which is fine as long as you don't try to deref it. So now *destination is NULL.
>
We go on:
>
   for (u32 N = 0; N < size; N++)
   {
     Output("source[N]: ", source[N]);
     *destination[N] = source[N];
   }
>
*destination[N] is our first big problem (we're ignoring syntax errors, remember). destination is a null pointer, so destination[N] derefs a null pointer.
>
That's a fail. 0/10, D-, go away and write it again. And you / dare/ to impugn other people's C knowledge! Crack a book, for pity's sake.
>

>
If you can't even understand what is essentially
an infinite recursive relationship between two functions
except that one function can terminate the other then
you don't have a clue about the essence of my system.

>
If you can't even understand why it's a stupendously bad idea to dereference a null pointer, you have no business trying to teach anyone anything about C.
>
Your code is the work of a programmer so hideously incompetent that 'programmer' is scarcely a fair word to use.
>
When you publish code like that, to even *think* about denigrating other people's C knowledge is the height of arrogant hypocrisy.
>

One problem here is that you don't understand how PO's code works. That's to be expected, and PO's response ought to be to explain it so that you understand.  Instead he goes off on one of his rants, so blamewise it's really down to PO.
>
PO's halt7.c is compiled (it is not linked), then the obj file is fed as input to his x87utm.exe which is a kind of x86 obj code execution environment.  x87utm provides a number of primative calls that halt7.c code can make, such as Allocate(), used to allocate a block of memory for use in halt7.c.  Within halt7.c code calls an Allocate() function, and x86utm intercepts that and performs the function internally, then jumps the calling code in halt7.c over the Allocate call where it continues as normal.  The call never goes to the implementation of Allocate in halt7.c, so the null pointer dereferencing does not actually occur.  There are a whole bunch of similar x86utm primitive operations that work in the same way.
>
PO should have said all that, not me, but it seems he's not interested in genuine communication.
>
Mike.
>
>

>
Thanks for those details, they are correct.
I try to stay focused on the key essence gist
of the issue and never delve down into the weeds.
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
The key gist of the issue (no weeds involved)
is that HHH emulated DD according to the rules
of the x86 language
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     *until H correctly determines that*
     *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

>
And since H does not correctly determine that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted, it is a vacuous statement and Sipser's agreement does not tell anything.
>

 That is counter factual as any fully qualified
C programmer will tell you.

All fully qualified C programmers told me that it is not counter-factual. But I suppose in your language counter-factual means 'not in my dreams'.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 DDD correctly simulated by any HHH cannot
possibly reach its own simulated "return"
instruction.
 

Another vacuous statement, as HHH cannot correctly simulate DDD which includes HHH itself.