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

Op 12.mei.2025 om 06:11 schreef olcott:

On 5/11/2025 10:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/11/2025 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 10:39 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/11/2025 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>
You try to get away with changing the subject
because you know that you are lying about one
or more steps of DDD emulated by HHH according
to the rules of the x86 language

>
It is you who are changing the subject away from DDD emulated by HHH (not one or more steps of DDD emulated by HHH) which you have admitted for the record is not correct:
>

>
I am only referring to the hypothetical infinite
set of pure x86 emulators specified below:
>

>
Each of which is processing a distinct, different input.
>
Changing the input is not allowed.

 I am examining all the elements of a infinite set
such that each HHH/DDD pair has a specific fixed form.
 _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]
 For all x86 emulators HHH that emulate 1 or more x86 instructions
of an input there does not exist a DDD (matching the above template)
correctly emulated by HHH such that DDD reaches its “ret” instruction
final halt state.
  

You are not only examining an infinite set of simulators, but also an infinite set of inputs. For each input you choose a simulator that is just too early to abort its simulation.. A few steps more would cause a natural end of the simulation.
Unfortunately, you choose an infinite number of wrong tools.
That does not prove anything about the correct behaviour of the inputs.