Re: The actual code of HHH

On 2/26/25 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:

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?
>
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.
>

>
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.
 I am writing this for my posthumous reviewers.
 

I guess you are just admitting to your posthuous reviews that you always were just making things up.
Since HHH has definite code, (that of Halt7), you should be able to provide that trace yourself.
Of course, the problem is that HHH can not have definite code, and thus definite behavior, or then you can't talk about the "any HHH".
This means that in your model, the program DD can't be a definite set of code, since it calls HHH, and thus it isn't valid as an input.
As a fragment, no HHH can correctly emulate the input you provide here beyond the call HHH instruction, as nothing beyond that point is available from the input.
This means your claim is based on the assumption of an impossibility, and your logic proven to be just a fraud.
All you are doing is proving for all time that you are too stupid to understand the meaning of the words, and so stupid and prideful that you can not admit you need to learn them.
Your "logic", if we can streach the meaning of the word to cover what you use, is just based on LIES, and false assumptions, and a total disregard for what is actually true, but the beleif that you can make up what you want.
Sorry, you are just too stupid to beleive, and you have made that clear to posterity.
At first, I thought that you might have had some idea applicable to general Philosophy, but you have proven that if there was anything there, it is untrustworth as it has grown up in a bed of stupid lies, and thus shouldn't be touched with a 40' pole.