On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>> article
before or when HHH
That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
talking about in this forum for several years.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about
that paper.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains
a false claim.
It is a truism and not one person on the face of the
Earth can possibly show otherwise.
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
When you try to show the steps attempting to show that
it is false I will point out the error.
Step 1: Find people who know C.
Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask.
This is the only topic that I will discuss and any
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that
HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
*You (and everyone else) is proven wrong by the following*
918-1156 // All of the lines of termination analyzer HHH
1355-1370 // DD() through main()
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
The assembly language source code of every function in Halt7.c https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7out.txt
This shows the complete execution trace of
(a) main
(b) DD
It does not show the 171 pages of execution trace of HHH.
This can be much more easily verified by the provided
239 lines of source code: 918-1156
Although the code for HHH is very difficult to understand
(Only Mike has ever really tried to understand it)
At least now it is all in one single contiguous block.
The x86utm operating system functions that it calls
are found here:
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/x86utm.cpp
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/include/Read_COFF_Object.h
On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that article >>>>>>>>>> before or when HHH
That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been talking >>>>>>>>> about in this forum for several years.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that paper.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line contains >>>>>>>> a false claim.
It is a truism and not one person on the face of the
Earth can possibly show otherwise.
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
When you try to show the steps attempting to show that
it is false I will point out the error.
Step 1: Find people who know C.
Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask.
This is the only topic that I will discuss and any
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that
HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
*You (and everyone else) is proven wrong by the following*
918-1156 // All of the lines of termination analyzer HHH
1355-1370 // DD() through main()
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
The assembly language source code of every function in Halt7.c https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7out.txt
This shows the complete execution trace of
(a) main
(b) DD
It does not show the 171 pages of execution trace of HHH.
This can be much more easily verified by the provided
239 lines of source code: 918-1156
Although the code for HHH is very difficult to understand
(Only Mike has ever really tried to understand it)
At least now it is all in one single contiguous block.
The x86utm operating system functions that it calls
are found here:
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/x86utm.cpp
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/include/Read_COFF_Object.h
On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that article >>>>>>>>>> before or when HHH
That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been talking >>>>>>>>> about in this forum for several years.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that paper.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line contains >>>>>>>> a false claim.
It is a truism and not one person on the face of the
Earth can possibly show otherwise.
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
When you try to show the steps attempting to show that
it is false I will point out the error.
Step 1: Find people who know C.
Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask.
This is the only topic that I will discuss and any
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that
HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
*You (and everyone else) is proven wrong by the following*
918-1156 // All of the lines of termination analyzer HHH
1355-1370 // DD() through main()
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
The assembly language source code of every function in Halt7.c https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7out.txt
This shows the complete execution trace of
(a) main
(b) DD
On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:This depends entirely on HHH not aborting *in every invocation*.
Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is notypedef void (*ptr)();
proof or pointer to proof below.
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.--
On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
proof or pointer to proof below.
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
own "return" instruction.
That this may be beyond your technical skill level.
is less than no rebuttal at all.
Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/25/25 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/25/2025 12:07 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:01:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no >>>>>> proof or pointer to proof below.typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
This depends entirely on HHH not aborting *in every invocation*.
Whether HHH aborts or never aborts DD simulated by
HHH never terminates normally.
No, becuawe "DD" is the program as it behaves when run or correctly
simulated.
_DD()
[00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402 jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d pop ebp
[00002155] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
In other words you are trying to get away with saying
that the above DD emulated by HHH can somehow jump
over machine address 0000213c and still be a correct
emulation.
On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
proof or pointer to proof below.
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
own "return" instruction.
Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:26:06 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,582 |