Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF

On 2/25/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/25/25 9:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/25/25 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 12:07 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:01:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
proof or pointer to proof below.
>

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
    HHH(DD);
}
>
The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.

>

This depends entirely on HHH not aborting *in every invocation*.
>

>
Whether HHH aborts or never aborts DD simulated by
HHH never terminates normally.

>
No, becuawe "DD" is the program as it behaves when run or correctly simulated.
>

>
_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>
In other words you are trying to get away with saying
that the above DD emulated by HHH can somehow jump
over machine address 0000213c and still be a correct
emulation.
>
>

>
That is NOT what I am saying, but that is just your strawman lie.
>
Since your HHH doesn't correctly emulate the input, your statement is just nonsense.
>
What I am saying is that the actual correct emulation of the full input, which needs to include the definition of your actual HHH that gives your claimed answer, will reach the final state.
>
The fact that you keep on conditioning your "proof" with an impossible statment just shows your stupidity.
>
And you are the one that claims OTHERS put forward "nonsense" statements, when you are the champion of that operation.
>
Remember your words about the fate of liar, and try to resolve that with your own lies about the actual behavior of HHH. Sorry, but you are due for a hot time in the old town some point soon.
>
All you are doing is totally proving your utter ignorance and total stupidity in what you write.

 Provide line by line execution trace of the first
15 lines that HHH should emulate of the above code.
 Feel free to say that you just don't understand these
things well enough to do that.
 

Given that input as the only input:
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
then HHH needs to tell its programmer that he is an idiot, as there is no way that HHH can emulate the input since it isn't a complete program.
Sorry, but the way you put the question just shows that you are nothing but a complete idiot and are totally ignorant of the topic you are talking about.
Feel Free to admit your stupidity, or try to prove that my comments are incorrect by showing an authoratative source.
Until you do, you are just admitting your stupidity, and that you are nothing but a pathological lying fraud.