Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0

On 6/26/2024 3:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.jun.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:

On 6/25/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
It might be true, but it is irrelevant, because the simulated H0 is aborted prematurely. The simulating H0 aborts after two cycles,

>
*I am not even talking about a simulating halt decider yet dumbo*

 Neither am I. Why do you mention a simulating halt decider? (Who is the dumbo?)
 

If you can't begin to comprehend x86 emulators then our conversation
is dead right here.

 Fortunately, I am very well able to do so.
But it seems that you have to learn a few basic facts about simulation.
 

>
For every x86 emulator Ho that can possibly exist
at machine address 0000217a...
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.

 So, you repeat your claim without showing any error in my reasoning.
Therefore, I repeat again:
 It might be true hat H0 cannot return,

As soon as you say that you are certain that it is true
we can move on to its relevance. That it is true is as
simple as arithmetic. Why it is relevant is much more
difficult.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer