Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Kicking the straw-man deception out on its ass

On 3/3/25 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/3/2025 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-02 21:21:04 +0000, olcott said:
>

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]
>
DD emulated by HHH according to the behavior that DD
specifies cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
and terminate normally.

>
DD does not fully specify a behaviour. The behaviour depends on HHH,
which is not a part of DD. If HHH returns 0 then DD specifies a non-
terminatingg behaviour but that is a big if.
>

 A stipulated premise is that HHH emulates its input.
This is proven by the actual code that no one here
understands.

ANd iif you mean correctly emulates its input, then you augmentation of it deciding to abort is invalid, and thus your stipulation implies that HHH will never answer and thus isn't a decider and thus you are just admitting to being a liar.

 https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
The above code proves that:
(a) HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DD.
 (b) DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
 (c) The behavior of the input to HHH(DD) is different
than the behavior of the directly executed DD because
DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation and the directly
executed DD does not call HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
 

And where is that difference? You have implicitly admited this is a lie, because you can't show the first instruction actually emulated where the difference occurs.
Your problem is your claim is based on unsupporeted (and unsupportable) lies and make-beleive.
All you are doing is proving you are just a pathological lying idiot that doesn't care about the truth.