Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory

On 6/27/2025 7:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 27/06/2025 20:36, olcott wrote:

I am only here for the validation of the behavior
of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.
>
I have included proof that the people on comp.theory
lied about this at the bottom.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}
>
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
>
On 6/27/2025 12:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com
 > wrote:
 >
 >> I know that DDD .... simulated by HHH cannot
 >> possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement
 >> final halt state because the execution trace
 >> conclusively proves this.
 >
 > Everybody else knows this, too, and nobody has
 > said otherwise. *The conclusion is that the*
 > *simulation by HHH is incorrect*
 >
>
*That last sentence is an intentional falsehood*

 Well, people here use the term "simulation" in a number of ways, right?  Like I've pointed out to you on several occasions.  Maybe you should consider a simple misunderstanding over terminology before assuming bad intentions.
 So what does Alan mean by "the simulation by HHH is incorrect", exactly?  (And why do you think it is incorrect?)
 

*He can't possibly mean anything truthful*
*He can't possibly mean anything truthful*
*He can't possibly mean anything truthful*
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
At the C level HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that DDD simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that DDD simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that DDD simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that DDD simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
until HHH correctly determines that DDD simulated by HHH
(according to the semantics of the C programming language)
cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" instruction
(final halt state).
*Here is the same thing at the x86 machine code level*
(what HHH actually sees and analyzes)
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
The x86 source code of DDD specifies that this emulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own emulated "ret" instruction
final halt state when emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language.

That is a question for PO, rather than Alan, since it is PO who claims Alan is lying...
 Mike.
 

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