Re: The actual code of HHH

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:54:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/26/25 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/26/2025 3:52 PM, joes wrote:

Since there is so much talk around, but not really about it,
let's take a look:
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
48b4cbfeb3f486507276a5fc4e9b10875ab24dbf/Halt7.c#L1081 In line 1137,
we compute a flag:
u32 Root = Init_Halts_HH(&Aborted, &execution_trace, &decoded,
&code_end,
(u32)P, &master_state, &slave_state, &slave_stack);
In line 918, we find it basically checks for the magic number
**execution_trace==0x90909090. What is this unexplained value?

Where does it come from?

We then pass the saved flag in line 1143:
if (Decide_Halting_HH(&Aborted, &execution_trace, &decoded,
code_end, End_Of_Code, &master_state, &slave_state, &slave_stack,
Root)), defined in line 1030. Then we get a switch:
1059    if (Root)  // Master UTM halt decider
Line 1070 is then conditionally skipped:
Needs_To_Be_Aborted_HH((Decoded_Line_Of_Code*)**execution_trace);
defined in line 1012, which (on a jmp or call instruction) calls u32
Needs_To_Be_Aborted_Trace_HH(Decoded_Line_Of_Code* execution_trace,
Decoded_Line_Of_Code *current)
in line 964, where the abort logic lives. (It basically triggers on a
call or jump to itself.)
So we only abort depending on the address of the execution trace.
This makes no sense. Why is that?
>

DD emulated by HHH according to the behavior that the x86 machine code
of DD cannot possibly terminate normally thus HHH is infallibly
correct to report that this DD emulated by HHH (not any other DD in
the whole freaking universe) is not-terminating.

Don't dodge. What is line 918 for?

No, HHH doesn't see the actual behavior define by the x86 processor, as
it aborts its simulaiton before it gets there. You just don't know what
"correct" means,

If you cannot provide the correct first fifteen steps of DD correctly
emulated by HHH to show exactly how I am wrong then everyone that
understands these things will understand that YOUR REBUTTAL HAS NO
BASIS.

That depends entirely on the call to HHH.

I am writing this for my posthumous reviewers.

You will be forgotten.
--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.