XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/31/2025 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/31/25 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And FAILING to do it is just a lie.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf   
   >   
   > Which, as has been pointed out, NOT the trace generated by HHH   
   > simulating DDD, as it begins at main, which HHH NEVER simulates.   
   >   
      
   HHH simulates DDD then simulates a different instance   
   of itself simulating a different instance of DDD which   
   calls another different instance of HHH(DDD)...   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   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)