Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH

On 6/29/24 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/29/2024 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-28 15:28:55 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/28/2024 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-27 17:07:20 +0000, olcott said:
>

Until you agree with this we cannot move on to the next
and final point that proves I am correct. Proving that
point may possibly take longer than the rest of my life
so let's not delay this OK?
>
[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 x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return.

>
If it is too hard to prove that H0 has the properties you claim
then an agreement is unlikely. Perhaps you should Δ instead and
just assume it has the properties you consider essential. The
full proof of your claim does not need much more.
>

>
It is not at all too hard to prove.

>
Then prove it. The following does not even mention H0 and therefore
does not prove anything about it.
>

 It is easy to prove
if you know, C, x86 emulators and the x86 language
sufficiently well and impossible otherwise.
>
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>
_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]
>
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly return.

>
The phrase "any pure function x86 emulator HHH" is incorrect. In particular,
the word "any" is wrong. At 217a DDD calls 15d2 and that is the only call
in DDD. The function at 15d2 either is or is not pure, we just don't konw
as long as no proof is shown; < and it either is ir is not a x86
emulator, we just don't as long as no proof is shown; and it ehither does
or does not return, we just don't know as long as no proof is shown.
It does not make sense to say "cannot": as long as you dont't prove that
it does return and don't prove that it does not return the main point
remains unproven.
>

 In other words when HHH emulates the first four instructions
of DDD and HHH is an x86 emulator you have no idea that the
emulated HHH would emulate DDD again?
 

Right, the EMULATED HHH emulated DDD (not again, as it wasn't the one that did the first one), the EMULATING HHH (the outer level) doesn't, but emulates HHH emulating DDD, which is different.
You just can't keep two separate things seperate (the two instances of HHH), perhaps because of a severe mental deficiency in your brain.