Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)

On 8/28/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/28/2024 7:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/28/2024 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.aug.2024 om 14:44 schreef olcott:

On 8/27/2024 3:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.aug.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:

This is intended to be a stand-alone post that does not
reference anything else mentioned in any other posts.
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_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]
>
When we assume that:
(a) HHH is an x86 emulator that is in the same memory space as DDD.
(b) HHH emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>
then we can see that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly get past
its own machine address 0000217a.
>

>
>
Yes, we see. In fact DDD is not needed at all.

>
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>
Apparently you do not even understand the English that is used to describe the straw man fallacy.
Or are trying to distract the attention from the fact that DDD is not needed is a simple truism, a tautology in your terms?
>

>
When 100% of the whole point is for HHH to correctly determine
whether or not DDD would stop running if not aborted
*IT IS RIDICULOUSLY STUPID TO SAY THAT DDD IS NOT NEEDED*
>
Acting ridiculously stupid when on is not stupid at all
cannot be reasonably construed as anything besides a sadistic
head game.
>

When without DDD it is clear as crystal that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly:

  Damned Liar !!!
I have told you too many times that correct simulation
is simply obeying the semantics of the 86 language for
whatever the x86 input finite string specifies.
 If the x86 string tells the computer to catch on fire and
the computer catches on fire then this proves that the
emulation was correct.
 

Except that the x86 instruction set doesn't have the HCF instruction, so arguing about imposibiliites is a side trace.
Your problem is that your analysis is NOT based on the properties of the actual x86 instruction set, as HHH seems to ignore the actual meaning of the behavior of the instructions in HHH, but instead, presume an INCORRECT meaning.
The key point is that your HHH *DOES* abort its simuilation of its input, and thus a call to HHH(DDD) *WILL* return, even if the emulator emulating that call doesn't. Thus, it is clear that HHH didn't *NEED* to abort its simulation, because the emulator that DDD calls does.

 

>
       int main() {
           return HHH(main);
       }
>
  (where HHH stops running but claims that it does not stop running)
>
then it is ridiculously stupid to create an even more complicated example in which HHH simulates itself (by introducing DDD that does nothing else than calling HHH) and then claim that the problem is in DDD.
>