Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1

On 6/4/2025 3:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/4/2025 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 3:43 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/4/2025 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 6:32 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/3/2025 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Counter-factual as anyone that understands
the x86 language can clearly see.
>

>

>
_DDD()
[00002183] 55             push ebp
[00002184] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002186] 6883210000     push 00002183 ; push DDD
[0000218b] e833f4ffff     call 000015c3 ; call HHH
[00002190] 83c404         add esp,+04
[00002193] 5d             pop ebp
[00002194] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002194]
>
// First four instructions of DDD emulated by HHH1
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138d9
[00002183][001138c9][001138cd] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of HHH1
[00002184][001138c9][001138cd] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; DDD of HHH1
[00002186][001138c5][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
[0000218b][001138c1][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH
New slave_stack at:14e2f9
>
// First four instructions of DDD emulated by emulated HHH
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:15e301
[00002183][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of HHH[0]
[00002184][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; DDD of HHH[0]
[00002186][0015e2ed][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
[0000218b][0015e2e9][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH
New slave_stack at:198d21
>
// First four instructions of DDD emulated by emulated emulated HHH
[00002183][001a8d19][001a8d1d] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of HHH[1]
[00002184][001a8d19][001a8d1d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; DDD of HHH[1]
[00002186][001a8d15][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
[0000218b][001a8d11][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>

>
False, as the side-by-side trace show exactly that and as you have admitted on the record *multiple times*:
>

>
There isn't enough room to put them side-by-side.
The first paragraph is HHH1 simulating DDD
The second paragraph is HHH simulating DDD
The third paragraph is HHH simulating itself DDD
>
There is no corresponding HHH1 simulating itself

>
>
Irrelevent.  A simulation by definition is not affected by what happened before the simulation started.
>
What is relevant is that both HHH and HHH1 simulate DDD once, which includes simulating the code of HHH which in turn simulates DDD, and both are the same up to the point that HHH aborts, which you have admitted *multiple times* on the record:
>

>
The simulation of DDD by HHH1 and HHH is exactly the same
until HHH begins emulating itself (HHH1 never does this).
>

 False, as you have *explicitly* admitted:
   On 6/4/2025 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 6/4/2025 4:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
 >>
 >> That did not answer the question: WHAT INSTRUCTION, correctly simulated did that?
 >
 > When HHH1(DDD) simulates DDD it never simulates itself.
 > When HHH(DDD) simulates DDD then simulates itself simulating
 > DDD the first instruction that this simulated HHH simulates
 > diverges from the simulation that HHH1 did.
 >
 >> You cannot point to any instruction interpreted differently by the two simulators.
 >
 > There are no instructions interpreted differently.
 

HHH1(DDD) emulates DDD once and never emulates itself.
HHH(DDD) emulates DDD then emulates itself emulating DDD.
the first instruction of DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself
is one more instruction of DDD than HHH1 ever emulates.
the 2nd instruction of DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself
is now two more instructions of DDD than HHH1 ever emulates.
the 3nd instruction of DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself
is now three more instructions of DDD than HHH1 ever emulates.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer