Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 --- STA

On 2025-04-03 01:19:43 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/2/2025 1:47 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.apr.2025 om 17:55 schreef olcott:

On 4/2/2025 9:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:26:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/31/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.mrt.2025 om 20:16 schreef olcott:

 

A simulating termination analyzer is always correct to abort the
simulation and reject the input as non-halting when-so-ever this input
would otherwise prevent itself from halting.
 

But the input is halting, as proven by direct execution.

 Something other than the input is halting.
HHH1(DDD) shows the same behavior as the direct execution.
   HHH(DDD) shows the behavior of the actual input.

Why are you not passing DDD as input? Why do you not call what you're
doing HHH(HHH(DDD))? What is the difference in what is passed to HHH1?
 

 This seems to be above your level of technical competence.
 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 Anyone understanding the above code where HHH
emulates DDD according to the semantics of the
x86 language knows that this DDD (not some
other different DDD) cannot possibly reach its
own final halt state.

 

Yes it fails to reach the end of the simulation of a program that according to the x86 semantics has an end as proven by direct execution.

 In other words you don't hardly know the x86
language at all.

Although x86 is more complex than a Turing machine and might therefore
seem easier to use for obfuscation it is not really vague enough that
such obvuscation would succeed here.
--
Mikko