Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters

Op 11.jul.2024 om 16:49 schreef olcott:

On 7/11/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-10 14:53:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/10/2024 9:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2024 om 16:16 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2024 9:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2024 om 14:37 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2024 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jul.2024 om 23:18 schreef olcot

_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>
DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it
past the above line of code no matter what.
>
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]

>
Which proves that HHH does not interpret x86 code correctly.

>
*It interprets the code correctly*
https://github.com/wfeldt/libx86emu

>

>
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
*correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD*
>

>
You seem to be stuck in infinite invalid reasoning.
A simulator cannot simulate 1 to ∞ steps at the same time.

>
For the entire infinite set of every possible HHH the
semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that
no DDD every halts.

>
What is the set you call "the etire set of every possible HHH"?
>

 An infinite set of different instances of HHH
HHH emulates 1 step of DDD
HHH emulates 2 steps of DDD
HHH emulates 3 steps of DDD...
HHH emulates ∞ steps of DDD
Every DDD of each HHH/DDD pair is either aborted or keeps running.

Every HHH in this set is incorrect, because it cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.
This shows that the set of HHH correctly simulating itself is empty.
It is incorrect, not because the start of the simulation is incorrect, but because the HHH that abort, abort a halting program halfway, one cycle before the simulation would halt, and the HHH that do not abort does not halt at all. In none of these cases the end of the simulation is reached.
The semantics of the x86 language specify that all N instructions of a halting program must be processed to get the correct behaviour. HHH cannot do that.
You make it unneeded complex by introducing DDD. The simpler example is:
        int main()
        {
          return HHH(main);
        }
No DDD needed. This shows more clearly that the problem is HHH, not DDD.
Since you told us that HHH aborts after a finite number of cycles of recursive simulation, which was also shown in the full trace that you mentioned as a reference, we see that the simulation is aborted one cycle too soon. The simulation does not simulate the last part of the behaviour correctly, which includes that last cycle, the abort and the return. That is similar to the simulation of:
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
If Finite_Recursion(5) is simulated only for two cycles of recursion, after which the simulation is aborted, then the simulation is incorrect.
And since the simulation is proven to be incorrect, you cannot refer to Sipser, who only agreed with a correct simulation.