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

On 3/2/25 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:

HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that emulates
the x86 machine code located at the address of a function
using a fully functional x86 emulator.
 When HHH recognizes a non-terminating pattern in the
execution trace of its emulated input it aborts this
emulation and returns 0.

But the pattern isn't "non-terminatingf", as the actual correct emulation of the exact DD that HHH is saying is non-terminating will terminate.

 typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 _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 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.

The problem is that the HHH that does to the cprrect emulation never will abort its emulation to answer, and thus fails to be a decider.
Your challenge fails on the basis that it is based on the presumption of a false statement, that there CAN be an HHH that both correctly emulates the input and is a decider.
Correct emulation is correct emulation regardless of who does it for any actual programs, and thus the correct emulation by your HHH1, that reaches the final state is the proof that your claim is just a blatant lie.
If the "correct emulation" by HHH for this exact input difered, then you could show the first instruction in these two emulation where the difference occurs.
Note, to even make the claim that you can emulate DD, we need to correct your input to include *ALL* of the code for the PROGRAM DD, which includes the code for the HHH that you claim is giving the correct answer (and thus doesn't change when we examine it by some other decider, even another hypothetical version of HHH).
Without that correction, you problem just fails as it is impossible to correctly emulate that which isn't provided, so if the code for HHH isn't provided, it can't be emulated.
If you want to try to get away with your HHH is just described as an emulator, then that needs to be what HHH actually is, and that needs to FULLY describe its behavior. If you then try to "augement" by saying it aborts it emulation, you need to START with that behaivor, and if HHH is know to abort its emulation of DD and returns 0, then it is clear tht hte correct emulation of DD is to halt.
Your attempt to LIE about HHH being two different programs, one the decider that aborts, and one the "ideal" emulator that doesnt just proves that your logic accepts lies as true and is thus itself just a lie.

 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.
 

The fact that *YOU* have failed to show where the correct emulation of this exact input by HHH1 first differs from the partial emulation by HHH at the actual emulation of an instrucion, is just an admittion by your that you KNOW your claims are false, and that you are just trying to bluff your way, just proving that you are nothing but a flat out blatant liar, who may be so stupid he doesn't understand how stupid he is to insist on things that are clearly fals.\e.