Re: Failure to meet this challenge proves that all of my reviewers are wrong

Op 02.mrt.2025 om 16:51 schreef olcott:

On 3/2/2025 8:55 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 08:42:03 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>

I challenged everyone here to provide the machine address by machine
address (AKA line by line) execution trace of DD correctly emulated by
HHH that reaches its own "ret" instruction.
No one made any attempt to do this because they know that this would
prove that they are stupidly wrong to say that my trace is incorrect.

I did, on thursday at 9pm UTC.
>

 _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]
 I am asking for a sequence of 10 hexadecimal integer
machine addresses of DD correctly emulated by HHH.
 At machine address 0000213c HHH emulates itself
emulating DD. (As an anyone would know that knows
what an x86 emulator is).

We use Olcott's statement that HHH returns 0.
Then the sequence would be:
00002133, 00002134, 00002136, 00002137, 0000213c, 00002141, 00002144, 00002147, 0000214b, 0000214f, 00002152, 00002154, 00002155.
This correct trace is also found by the simulation by HHH1.
Unfortunately, HHH cannot possibly perform this correct simulation, because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.