On 6/17/22 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2022 1:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Olcott claims that H is a pure function which somehow detects and
>> prevents a second call to H however it does this through emulation so I
>> am thinking that the second call would, if not prevented, be
>> not to H but instead to an emulated and therefore different H?
>>
>
> The exact same machine code at the exact same machine address yet a
> different process instance. None of these details actually matter
> because no matter what terms we use to describe it P is doing something
> that prevents it from reaching its "ret" instruction.
And thus needs to behave exactly the same, so since H(P,P) directly
called by main returns 0, so must the emulated H(P,P) called by the
emulated (P).
If you want to show that it can behave differerently, what is the first
x86 assembly instruction for the emulated H(P,P) that generates
different results from the directly executed H(P,P).
Until you can provide that information, you claim of the "impossible"
behavior is just an obvious lie.
That, or H just doesn't do a correct emulation of its input program,
which includes not only the x86 instructions of the subroutine P itself,
but everything that P calls.
Until you show proof of your claims of impossible behavior, the only
actual conclusion we can make is that you are either lying or are mistaken.