Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined

On 3/20/25 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/20/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/19/25 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:

>

 _DDD()
[00002177] 55               push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a] 6877210000       push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f] e853f4ffff       call 000015d7 ; call HHH
[00002184] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002187] 5d               pop ebp
[00002188] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]
 

>
When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language then these
N steps are emulated correctly.
>

>
Right, The N Steps of DDD were emulated correctly, but not the WHOLE of DDD, that wasn't correctly emulated.
>

 After the first four instructions of DDD has been correctly
emulated by HHH and HHH emulates itself correctly emulating
the first four instructions DDD again then
 DDD has met the infinite recursion behavior pattern of HHH.
HHH has no idea that DDD is calling itself
See _Infinite_Recursion() BELOW

Nope. Just shows you don't understand levels of context.

 // executed HHH emulates 1st instance of DDD
New slave_stack at:10388d
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
[00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
 // emulated HHH emulates 2nd instance of DDD

which isn't the emulation by the top leve l HHH, and thus you have proven that you are lying about using the x86 language as your basis.

New slave_stack at:14e2b5
[00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 _Infinite_Recursion()
[00002082] 55             push ebp
[00002083] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002085] e8f8ffffff     call 00002082
[0000208a] 90             nop
[0000208b] 5d             pop ebp
[0000208c] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0011) [0000208c]
 HHH only sees that DDD calls the same function twice in
sequence with no conditional branch instructions between
00002082 and 00002085 that could possibly allow
_Infinite_Recursion() to ever reach its own "ret"
instruction.
>

Then it isn't looking.
Note, the second level doesn't actually exist in the context of the first, only in a meta, which you are trying to claim isn't a meta.
Sorry, you are just showing how your logic is just a FRAUD.
You have admitted to that, and you are now stuck with that admissition.
All you have don't is sunk your reputation forever in that lake of fire.