Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1

On 6/4/25 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/4/2025 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 7:41 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/4/2025 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Show me this side-by-side trace and I will point out your mistake.

>
See below, which shows that the simulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are identical up to the point that HHH aborts, as you have agreed on the record.
>

 

>
False.  The correct trace is the one I posted, which shows all levels of emulation performed by HHH and HHH1.  See the corrections I made to your comments

 It is not supposed to do that.
 It is supposed to show
the emulation of DDD by HHH1 and
the emulation of DDD by HHH
side-by-side to show the point where these
emulations diverge.

But both of those, to be correct, need to follow the execution path INTO HHH and show the operation of that code.
Since both of your "emulations" fail to do that, you are just basing your answers on lies.

 DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH
[00002183] push ebp               [00002183] push ebp
[00002184] mov ebp,esp            [00002184] mov ebp,esp
[00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD
[0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH
 DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself
[00002183] push ebp      ;
[00002184] mov ebp,esp   ;
[00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD
[0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH
 

So, even by your error in definition, the fact that HHH1 "emulated" how HHH would emulated DDD, and goes FARTHER to see that HHH *WILL* abort and return 0, gets the right answer.
HHH on the other hand, when it sees the next layer, improperly just gives up and assumes that it won't ever stop, but since the HHH being emulated *IS* the HHH that does abort and return, if we look at the CORRECT emulation of the input to HHH, it would do the same thing that HHH1 say, and that the correct answer is HALTING.
Your problem is you lie to yourself and think that the thought experement of asking what if THIS HHH didn't abort at this point, but continued to emulate THIS INPUT (of a program, that includes the code that IS there, which is the HHH that does abort and return) it sees just what HHH1 does.
Your problem is you LIE to yourself that you can look at category errors and change what the code is that is given as the input.
SOrry, you are just proving your utter stupidity.