Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence --- VERIFIED FACTS

On 6/12/25 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2025 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/11/25 8:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2025 4:06 PM, anthk wrote:

On 2025-06-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
of DDD emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1.
>
int main()
{
    HHH1(DDD);
}
>
Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by
HHH1 diverges as soon as HHH begins emulating itself
emulating DDD.
>
*From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below*
DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH
[00002183] push ebp               [00002183] push ebp
[00002184] mov ebp,esp            [00002184] mov ebp,esp
[00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD
[0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH
*HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD once, these match*
>
The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at
the machine address of 00002183.
>
The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at
the machine address of 00002190.
>
00002183 != 00002190
>
_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]
>
_main()
[000021a3] 55             push ebp
[000021a4] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[000021a6] 6883210000     push 00002183 ; push DDD
[000021ab] e843f3ffff     call 000014f3 ; call HHH1
[000021b0] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021b3] 33c0           xor eax,eax
[000021b5] 5d             pop ebp
[000021b6] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0020) [000021b6]
>
   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
   address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  ========== =============
<main is executed>
[000021a3][0010382d][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; main()
[000021a4][0010382d][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; main()
[000021a6][00103829][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
[000021ab][00103825][000021b0] e843f3ffff call 000014f3 ; call HHH1
</main is executed>
>
New slave_stack at:1038d1
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138d9
>
<DDD emulated by HHH1>
[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
</DDD emulated by HHH1>
>
New slave_stack at:14e2f9
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:15e301
>
<DDD emulated by HHH>
[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
<DDD emulated by HHH>
>
New slave_stack at:198d21  DDD emulated by HHH
*This is the beginning of the divergence of the behavior*
*HHH is emulating itself emulating DDD, HHH1 never does that*
>
<DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself>
[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
</DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself>
>
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
HHH returns to caller
>
<DDD emulated by HHH1>
[00002190][001138c9][001138cd] 83c404     add esp,+04 ; DDD of HHH1
[00002193][001138cd][000015a8] 5d         pop ebp     ; DDD of HHH1
[00002194][001138d1][0003a980] c3         ret         ; DDD of HHH1
</DDD emulated by HHH1>
>
<main is executed>
[000021b0][0010382d][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04 ; main()
[000021b3][0010382d][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax ; main()
[000021b5][00103831][00000018] 5d         pop ebp     ; main()
[000021b6][00103835][00000000] c3         ret         ; main()
</main is executed>
Number of Instructions Executed(352831) == 5266 Pages
>

>
Lean Lisp first, ideally with Scheme. Go get Concrete Abstractions
and learn about recursivity and taill call optimization.

>
Tail optimization would at best convert recursive emulation
into an infinite loop.

>
Only for the DDD that calls the HHH that never aborts.
>
Sorry, but you admission to the facts that show that all your claims are just lies based on the category error of you not making HHH actually a fixed programs, and thus DDD isn't a program, and thus not something that CAN be correctly simulated, just shows that you don't care about what the truth actualy is.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own "return" statement final halt state, thus is correctly
rejected by HHH as non-halting.

>
Something that can not happen by your stipulations,
>
Sorry, you have ADMITTED that this statement can't be true by admitting that DDD isn't amoundg the category of things that can be simulated.
>
>

>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
The point of all of this is that the halting problem's
counter-example input is also correctly rejected as
non-halting thus refuting the conventional HP proof.
>

>
No it isn't, and the fact that you have admitted to the facts that show that you have just been lying all these years

 *The statements that I make below are verified facts*
When you baselessly call my statement of verified facts
"lies" that is the kind of "Reckless disregard of the truth"
that loses defamation cases.
 

about your system being the equivalent of the halting problem proof, just shows how little you care about truth.
>
You arguement effective begins with a statement with as much truth as the statement that 1 is the color BLUE.
>
>

 // rec routine P
//   §L :if T[P] go to L
//     Return §
// https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243

And T[P} passes the WHOLE PROGRAM P, including its use of that specific T to T.

void Strachey_P()
{
   L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
   return;
}
 It is a verified fact that DD() *is* one of the forms
of the counter-example input as such an input would
be encoded in C. Christopher Strachey wrote his in CPL.
 https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-abstract/7/4/313/354243? redirectedFrom=fulltext
 It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by
HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.
 

But DD is not correctly simulated by HHH, and with your stipulation that "the input" is just the assembly code of the C function, and NOT the "whole program" as Strachy does, means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for HHH to "correctly simulate the input", as partial programs that get into their unspecified code don't have behavior to simulate.
If we fix that issue, and define all of Code used by DD to be the input, then HHH must be fixed in behavior, and not allowed to change.
Thus we get two distinctly different cases:
case 1: HHH doesn't abort, and just keep on simulating DD, then as you have shown THAT DDD doesn't halt, but it isn't the same DD as the other HHH is looking at (since we changed the contents of the memory of that represented the input).
Case 2: HHH does abort at some point and return 0. Since this is a DIFFEREN input than case 1, since the memory has a different HHH loaded into it, we can't look at the results of case 1, and HHH didn't itself do a correct simuation of the input, so to actually determine the answer, we need to give the input to a third party, an orogram that will actually simulate the DD/HHH pairing, (like your HHH1) and we then see that the simulation will see DD call HHH(DD), which will simulate its input for awhile, then abort is simulation, and return 0 to the simulated DD which will then halt.
Your logic is based on assuming that two different things are the same, which is just a LIE.
You try to get away with that by trying to define HHH and DD such that they are not fully defined, but that puts you into a category error for the use of the terms you use.
Failure to point out any error in this, with sources for any words you disagree with the meaning I have used in this field, will be considered an admission that you have been knowningly lying about everything all these years.
Of course, everyone with a little bit of brain will be able to conclude that by the fact that you have yet to actually show a justification for any of your major claims, but just pull them all out of your ass.