Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

On 7/4/2024 11:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:58:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2024 10:03 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:32:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2024 8:09 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:53:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2024 6:09 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:55:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly,
you are wrong.
            int H(ptr p, ptr i);
            int main()
            {
              return H(main, 0);
            }
You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it does
not return.

main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.

As a matter of fact, H does abort it. H then returns to main,
which then stops running.

main correctly simulated by H never returns.

I was talking about main itself.

That is not the one that HHH examines.

Huh? HHH examines main. Sure, it doesn’t /simulate/ the return.

You don't know enough about operating system programming to understand
this.

This isn’t about OS programming.

Yes it is. The x86utm operating system spawns a separate
process so that H can emulate another different instance
of D in this separate process. H must call DebugTrace()
to switch process contexts to emulate one more instruction of D.

There is more than one main() process. One of them cannot possibly halt
and the other one halts.

That makes no sense. They have exactly the same code.
 

It makes no sense only if you are totally clueless of
operating system process contexts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer