XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/30/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/30/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 7/30/2025 6:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 7/30/25 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> _DDD()   
   >>>> [0000219e] 55             push ebp   
   >>>> [0000219f] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   
   >>>> [000021a1] 689e210000     push 0000219e   
   >>>> [000021a6] e843f4ffff     call 000015ee   
   >>>> [000021ab] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   >>>> [000021ae] 5d             pop ebp   
   >>>> [000021af] c3             ret   
   >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021af]   
   >>>   
   >>> cant' be the full input as not simuatable.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> We have been over this too many times. If DDD was   
   >>>> incorrectly emulated by HHH then you could show   
   >>>> the exact x86 instruction of DDD that was emulated   
   >>>> incorrectly when DDD is emulated by HHH or when   
   >>>> DDD is emulated by the emulated HHH.   
   >>>   
   >>> The Call HHH instruction below.   
   >>>   
   >>> Or the last instruction it simulates (which is also a call HHH   
   >>> instruction) in the full trace.   
   >>>   
   >>> Since the CORRECT simulation of a call instruction includes the   
   >>> execution of the instruction referenced by the call instruction.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine        assembly   
   >>>>   address   address   data      code             
   language   
   >>>>   ========  ========  ========  ========== =============   
   >>>> [000021be][00103872][00000000] 55         push ebp   
   >>>> [000021bf][00103872][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   
   >>>> [000021c1][0010386e][0000219e] 689e210000 push 0000219e // push DDD   
   >>>> [000021c6][0010386a][000021cb] e823f4ffff call 000015ee // call HHH   
   >>>> New slave_stack at:103916   
   >>>   
   >>> Not a correct simulation of the call HHH instruction.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:11391e   
   >>>> [0000219e][0011390e][00113912] 55         push ebp   
   >>>> [0000219f][0011390e][00113912] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   
   >>>> [000021a1][0011390a][0000219e] 689e210000 push 0000219e // push DDD   
   >>>> [000021a6][00113906][000021ab] e843f4ffff call 000015ee // call HHH   
   >>>> New slave_stack at:14e33e   
   >>>> [0000219e][0015e336][0015e33a] 55         push ebp   
   >>>> [0000219f][0015e336][0015e33a] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   
   >>>> [000021a1][0015e332][0000219e] 689e210000 push 0000219e // push DDD   
   >>>> [000021a6][0015e32e][000021ab] e843f4ffff call 000015ee // call HHH   
   >>>>   
   >>   
   >> The above proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating   
   >> DDD correctly in that the emulated HHH does emulate DDD   
   >> correctly.   
   >   
   > No, because you don't show the simulation of the code of HHH.   
   >   
      
   Mixing the above 8 instructions in with another 176   
   pages of instructions does not help understanding   
   things.   
      
   https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf   
      
   We can know that HHH did correctly emulate itself   
   emulating DDD because this emulated HHH does derive   
   the correct first four instructions of DDD.   
   > I guess you don't know what that means.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> It also shows the repeating pattern that DDD correctly   
   >> emulated by DDD derives.   
   >   
   > But that isn't what actually happens. the second copy doesn't actually   
   > happen in the actual simulation of the input.   
   >   
      
   Counter-factual and this proves that it is counter-factual   
   https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf   
      
   >>   
   >> Without even having an implemented HHH we can still   
   >> see that DDD emulated by an emulated HHH would produce   
   >> this same same repeating pattern.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But if HHH isn't implements, you can't HAVE DDD as a valid input.   
      
   HHH is implemented yet too difficult for you to   
   understand so we verify that DDD does emulate   
   itself emulating DDD in that its emulated DDD   
   does emulate the first four instructions of DDD   
   as shown above.   
      
   >   
   > All you are doing is proving you are just lying about what you are doing.   
   >   
      
   That you call me a liar could get you condemned to actual Hell.   
   Revelations 21:8   
   ...all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns   
   with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”   
      
   > You are just proving that your whold argument is based on category   
   > errors and lies.   
      
   That you keep changing the words that I say to make your   
   rebuttal easier is the strawman deception can could get you   
   condemned to actual Hell.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)