It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by
H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the
behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution trace
would be.
To reverse-engineer this execution trace we only need to step through
the x86 source-code of P and simply hypothesize that H does perform a
pure x86 emulation of its input.
If H did correctly perform a pure x86 emulation of P then these first instructions of P would be executed in sequence.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
The last line of code calls H(P,P) that would of course have to emulate
these same seven instructions again. From this we can see that P would
never reach its own final state at [0000136c]. When "halting" is defined
as reaching a final state we correctly conclude that P is non-halting.
This shows that H(P,P) does match the halting problem proof
counter-example pattern. Instead of source-code that must be
interpreted or compiled the machine language of P is passed to H.
For any program H that might determine if programs
halt, a "pathological" program P, called with some
input, can pass its own source and its input to H
and then specifically do the opposite of what H
predicts P will do. No H can exist that handles this
case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
#include <stdint.h>
#define u32 uint32_t
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
_main()
[00001372](01) 55 push ebp
[00001373](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001375](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P [0000137a](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P [0000137f](05) e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H [00001384](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001387](01) 50 push eax
[00001388](05) 6823040000 push 00000423 // "Input_Halts = " [0000138d](05) e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output [00001392](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001395](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
[00001397](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001398](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0039) [00001398]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= ...[00001372][0010229e][00000000] 55 push ebp ...[00001373][0010229e][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00001375][0010229a][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P ...[0000137a][00102296][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P ...[0000137f][00102292][00001384] e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.
...[00001384][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08 ...[00001387][0010229a][00000000] 50 push eax ...[00001388][00102296][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423 //
"Input_Halts = "
---[0000138d][00102296][00000423] e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output Input_Halts = 0
...[00001392][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08 ...[00001395][0010229e][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax ...[00001397][001022a2][00100000] 5d pop ebp ...[00001398][001022a6][00000004] c3 ret Number_of_User_Instructions(1)
Number of Instructions Executed(15892) = 237 pages
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the execution
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by
H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the
behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution trace
would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by
H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the
behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution trace
would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the input
to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for your damned
lies will be considered direct admission that you know you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P >> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P >> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that is
PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the input to H(P,P)
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by
H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the
behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution trace
would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
would be. Any failure to provide this basis for your damned lies will be considered direct admission that you know you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
H_Hat((u32)H_Hat);
}
_H_Hat()
[00000b98](01) 55 push ebp
[00000b99](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000b9c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000b9f](01) 50 push eax
[00000ba0](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000ba3](01) 51 push ecx
[00000ba4](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
[00000ba9](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000bac](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00000baf](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00000bb3](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
[00000bb5](02) ebfe jmp 00000bb5
[00000bb7](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00000bb9](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000bba](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00000bba]
_main()
[00000bc8](01) 55 push ebp
[00000bc9](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000bcb](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
[00000bd0](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
[00000bd5](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
[00000bd8](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
[00000bda](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000bdb](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0020) [00000bdb]
===============================
...[00000bc8][001015d4][00000000](01) 55 push ebp ...[00000bc9][001015d4][00000000](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000bcb][001015d0][00000b98](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98 ...[00000bd0][001015cc][00000bd5](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98 ...[00000b98][001015c8][001015d4](01) 55 push ebp ...[00000b99][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000b9b][001015c4][00000000](01) 51 push ecx ...[00000b9c][001015c4][00000000](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000b9f][001015c0][00000b98](01) 50 push eax ...[00000ba0][001015c0][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000ba3][001015bc][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx ...[00000ba4][001015b8][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b98 ...[00000b98][00211674][00211678](01) 55 push ebp ...[00000b99][00211674][00211678](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000b9b][00211670][00201644](01) 51 push ecx ...[00000b9c][00211670][00201644](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000b9f][0021166c][00000b98](01) 50 push eax ...[00000ba0][0021166c][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000ba3][00211668][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx ...[00000ba4][00211664][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938 ...[00000b98][0025c09c][0025c0a0](01) 55 push ebp ...[00000b99][0025c09c][0025c0a0](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000b9b][0025c098][0024c06c](01) 51 push ecx ...[00000b9c][0025c098][0024c06c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000b9f][0025c094][00000b98](01) 50 push eax ...[00000ba0][0025c094][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000ba3][0025c090][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx ...[00000ba4][0025c08c][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
...[00000ba9][001015c4][00000000](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 ...[00000bac][001015c4][00000000](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax ...[00000baf][001015c4][00000000](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 ...[00000bb3][001015c4][00000000](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7 ...[00000bb7][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp ...[00000bb9][001015cc][00000bd5](01) 5d pop ebp ...[00000bba][001015d0][00000b98](01) c3 ret ...[00000bd5][001015d4][00000000](03) 83c404 add esp,+04 ...[00000bd8][001015d4][00000000](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax ...[00000bda][001015d8][00100000](01) 5d pop ebp ...[00000bdb][001015dc][00000098](01) c3 ret
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by >>>>>> H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the
behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution
trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the
input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for your
damned lies will be considered direct admission that you know you
are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P >>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P >>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that is
PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language >>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by
H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the
behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution trace
would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the
input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for your
damned lies will be considered direct admission that you know you are
lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P >>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P >>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that is
PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
You are required to show the execution trace of the input to H(P,P)
under that assumption for one emulation and one nested emulation.
The one that you provided for the emulation is correct.
On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 12:47:12 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of the
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by >>>>>>>> H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the >>>>>>>> behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution
trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the
input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for your >>>>>> damned lies will be considered direct admission that you know you
are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that is >>>>> PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P >>>>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P >>>>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P >>>>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input.
Invalid, since H (i.e. Ha) has a fixed algorithm to abort.
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that H(P,P)
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided >>>>>>>>> by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches >>>>>>>>> the behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested
execution trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the >>>>>>> input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for
your damned lies will be considered direct admission that you
know you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that
is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly >>>>>> address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of the
input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You must show
this for one simulation and one nested simulation. Failure to do this
will be construed as a direct admission that you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first emulation and
the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to understand this?
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that H(P,P)
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the >>>>>>>> execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the >>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for >>>>>>>> your damned lies will be considered direct admission that you
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace
provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input
exactly matches the behavior of the correctly
reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
know you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that >>>>>>> is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly >>>>>>> address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp //
enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of the
input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You must
show this for one simulation and one nested simulation. Failure to
do this will be construed as a direct admission that you know you
are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first emulation
and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to understand this?
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to be traced.
To say otherwise just proves you are s stupid liar,
How else can you show an emulation of an emulator unless you have the
code that is doing the emulation that needs to be shown,
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that H(P,P)
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided >>>>>>>> by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches >>>>>>>> the behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested
execution trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the
input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for
your damned lies will be considered direct admission that you know >>>>>> you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that
is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly >>>>> address address data code language >>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of the
input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You must show
this for one simulation and one nested simulation. Failure to do this
will be construed as a direct admission that you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided
by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches
the behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution >>>>>>> trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the
input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for
your damned lies will be considered direct admission that you know
you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that is
PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly >>>> address address data code language >>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of the
input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You must show
this for one simulation and one nested simulation. Failure to do this
will be construed as a direct admission that you know you are lying.
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that H(P,P)
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the >>>>>>>>> execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of >>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis >>>>>>>>> for your damned lies will be considered direct admission that >>>>>>>>> you know you are lying.
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace
provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input >>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the behavior of the correctly
reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since
that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp //
enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax //
push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx //
push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 //
call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of the
input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You must
show this for one simulation and one nested simulation. Failure to
do this will be construed as a direct admission that you know you
are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first emulation
and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to understand this?
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to be
traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86 emulation of
its input (unless you have no idea what an x86 emulation is) there is no reason to see that the code derives a pure x86 emulation of its input.
What a pure x86 emulation of the input would be can be reverse
engineered entirely on the basis of the x86 source code for P.
You are not stupid for not knowing this, instead of stupid you would be technically unqualified to evaluate my work.
To say otherwise just proves you are s stupid liar,
How else can you show an emulation of an emulator unless you have the
code that is doing the emulation that needs to be shown,
On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that H(P,P)
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the >>>>>>>>>> execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of >>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>> provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the behavior of the correctly
reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
basis for your damned lies will be considered direct admission >>>>>>>>>> that you know you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since >>>>>>>>> that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>>>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp //
enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax //
push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx //
push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // >>>>>>>>> call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of
the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You
must show this for one simulation and one nested simulation.
Failure to do this will be construed as a direct admission that
you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first emulation
and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to understand this? >>>>
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to be
traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86 emulation of
its input (unless you have no idea what an x86 emulation is) there is
no reason to see that the code derives a pure x86 emulation of its input.
The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of
emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
On 5/21/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of H
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide >>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation >>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this >>>>>>>>>>> basis for your damned lies will be considered direct
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>>> provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input >>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the behavior of the correctly
reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
admission that you know you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369 >>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since >>>>>>>>>> that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>>>>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp //
enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax //
push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx //
push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // >>>>>>>>>> call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
Maybe a bad assumption!
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of
the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You
must show this for one simulation and one nested simulation.
Failure to do this will be construed as a direct admission that
you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first
emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to
understand this?
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to be
traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86 emulation of
its input (unless you have no idea what an x86 emulation is) there is
no reason to see that the code derives a pure x86 emulation of its
input.
The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of
emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
people here would be so confused that I would never reach closure in 50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution trace then showing
them much more than this would permanently scramble their brains.
The proof of technical competence to evaluating my work is understanding
that I have already shown everything that it needed.
Conversely the lack of this understanding is conclusive proof of
insufficient technical competence.
On 5/21/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of H
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Maybe a bad assumption!
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide >>>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace that a pure single level nested
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the behavior of the correctlyNo, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to >>>>>>>>>>>> provide this basis for your damned lies will be considered >>>>>>>>>>>> direct admission that you know you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369 >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since >>>>>>>>>>> that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp //
enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax //
push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx //
push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // >>>>>>>>>>> call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input. >>>>>>>>>
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of >>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You >>>>>>>> must show this for one simulation and one nested simulation.
Failure to do this will be construed as a direct admission that >>>>>>>> you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first
emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to
understand this?
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to be
traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86 emulation
of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86 emulation is)
there is no reason to see that the code derives a pure x86 emulation
of its input.
The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of
emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
people here would be so confused that I would never reach closure in
50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution trace then
showing them much more than this would permanently scramble their brains.
No, people wouldn't be confused,
On 5/21/2022 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of H
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Maybe a bad assumption!
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide >>>>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace that a pure single level nested
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the behavior of the correctlyNo, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>> provide this basis for your damned lies will be considered >>>>>>>>>>>>> direct admission that you know you are lying.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since >>>>>>>>>>>> that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>> // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax >>>>>>>>>>>> // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx >>>>>>>>>>>> // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 >>>>>>>>>>>> // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input. >>>>>>>>>>
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of >>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You >>>>>>>>> must show this for one simulation and one nested simulation. >>>>>>>>> Failure to do this will be construed as a direct admission that >>>>>>>>> you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first >>>>>>> emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to
understand this?
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to be >>>>>> traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86 emulation
of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86 emulation is)
there is no reason to see that the code derives a pure x86
emulation of its input.
The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of
emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
people here would be so confused that I would never reach closure in
50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution trace then
showing them much more than this would permanently scramble their
brains.
No, people wouldn't be confused,
That they don't understand that they don't need to see this conclusively proves that they have woefully inadequate technical skills to evaluate
my work.
On 5/21/22 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of H
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Maybe a bad assumption!
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace that a pure single level nested >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide this basis for your damned lies will be considered >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct admission that you know you are lying.
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the behavior of the correctlyNo, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, >>>>>>>>>>>>> since that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // >>>>>>>>>>>>> enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // >>>>>>>>>>>>> push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // >>>>>>>>>>>>> push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input. >>>>>>>>>>>
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace >>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. >>>>>>>>>> You must show this for one simulation and one nested
simulation. Failure to do this will be construed as a direct >>>>>>>>>> admission that you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first >>>>>>>> emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to >>>>>>>> understand this?
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to
be traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86 emulation >>>>>> of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86 emulation is)
there is no reason to see that the code derives a pure x86
emulation of its input.
The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of
emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
people here would be so confused that I would never reach closure in
50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution trace then
showing them much more than this would permanently scramble their
brains.
No, people wouldn't be confused,
That they don't understand that they don't need to see this
conclusively proves that they have woefully inadequate technical
skills to evaluate my work.
Just shows you are lying.
On 5/21/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:I coined the term "ignorance squared" decades ago to account for the
On 5/21/2022 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of H
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that >>>>>>>>> H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Maybe a bad assumption!
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide the execution trace that a pure single level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure to provide this basis for your damned lies will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be considered direct admission that you know you are lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input exactly matches the behavior of the correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // >>>>>>>>>>>>>> push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // >>>>>>>>>>>>>> push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its
input. You must show this for one simulation and one nested >>>>>>>>>>> simulation. Failure to do this will be construed as a direct >>>>>>>>>>> admission that you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
first emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too
stupid to understand this?
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to >>>>>>>> be traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86
emulation of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86
emulation is) there is no reason to see that the code derives a
pure x86 emulation of its input.
The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of
emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
people here would be so confused that I would never reach closure
in 50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution trace
then showing them much more than this would permanently scramble
their brains.
No, people wouldn't be confused,
That they don't understand that they don't need to see this
conclusively proves that they have woefully inadequate technical
skills to evaluate my work.
Just shows you are lying.
fact that people cannot possibly be directly aware of their own ignorance.
To be directly aware of their own ignorance requires them to contrast
their ignorance with the knowledge that they are missing.
Since they don't have this missing knowledge they cannot become directly aware that they are missing any knowledge. Their own ignorance is simply perceived as disagreement.
On 5/21/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:That the next level execution trace of the input to H(P,P) must be
On 5/21/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:I coined the term "ignorance squared" decades ago to account for the
On 5/21/2022 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that >>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the >>>>>>>>>> first emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too >>>>>>>>>> stupid to understand this?
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Maybe a bad assumption!
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide the execution trace that a pure single level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure to provide this basis for your damned lies will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be considered direct admission that you know you are lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input exactly matches the behavior of the correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp //
enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax //
push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx //
push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 000011a2 // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its >>>>>>>>>>>> input. You must show this for one simulation and one nested >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation. Failure to do this will be construed as a direct >>>>>>>>>>>> admission that you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to >>>>>>>>> be traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86
emulation of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86
emulation is) there is no reason to see that the code derives a >>>>>>>> pure x86 emulation of its input.
The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of >>>>>>> emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
H people here would be so confused that I would never reach
closure in 50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution
trace then showing them much more than this would permanently
scramble their brains.
No, people wouldn't be confused,
That they don't understand that they don't need to see this
conclusively proves that they have woefully inadequate technical
skills to evaluate my work.
Just shows you are lying.
fact that people cannot possibly be directly aware of their own
ignorance.
You seem tobe a good example of that.
To be directly aware of their own ignorance requires them to contrast
their ignorance with the knowledge that they are missing.
Since they don't have this missing knowledge they cannot become
directly aware that they are missing any knowledge. Their own
ignorance is simply perceived as disagreement.
So, what actual FACT do you think I am missing?
On 5/21/2022 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:That the next level execution trace of the input to H(P,P) must be identical to the first level trace.
On 5/21/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:I coined the term "ignorance squared" decades ago to account for the
On 5/21/2022 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of >>>>>>> H people here would be so confused that I would never reach
On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that >>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the >>>>>>>>>>> first emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too >>>>>>>>>>> stupid to understand this?
On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Maybe a bad assumption!
On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide the execution trace that a pure single level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure to provide this basis for your damned lies will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be considered direct admission that you know you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying.
It is an easily verified fact that the execution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input exactly matches the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly reverse-engineered nested execution trace >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be.
No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since that is PART of P.
It would begin as:
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp //
enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax //
push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx //
push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 000011a2 // call H
At this point I don't have the data,
The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is stipulated that you must show what the execution >>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> its input. You must show this for one simulation and one >>>>>>>>>>>>> nested simulation. Failure to do this will be construed as >>>>>>>>>>>>> a direct admission that you know you are lying.
So, give me a copy of H to trace,
You obviously have an reading problem.
I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs >>>>>>>>>> to be traced.
If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86
emulation of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86
emulation is) there is no reason to see that the code derives a >>>>>>>>> pure x86 emulation of its input.
The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of >>>>>>>> emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
closure in 50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution >>>>>>> trace then showing them much more than this would permanently
scramble their brains.
No, people wouldn't be confused,
That they don't understand that they don't need to see this
conclusively proves that they have woefully inadequate technical
skills to evaluate my work.
Just shows you are lying.
fact that people cannot possibly be directly aware of their own
ignorance.
You seem tobe a good example of that.
To be directly aware of their own ignorance requires them to contrast
their ignorance with the knowledge that they are missing.
Since they don't have this missing knowledge they cannot become
directly aware that they are missing any knowledge. Their own
ignorance is simply perceived as disagreement.
So, what actual FACT do you think I am missing?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 117:27:30 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,334,238 |