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:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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,
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> 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 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.

I think you are afraid that people DO have the technical skills to
evaluate your work and if you show what you have done you will be
utterly humiliated.

You have taken EXTREAMLY long times to do anything programming related
to this problem, an my guess is that the code quality will show your
incompetence, if you even have actual working code.

You are afraid to release to code, because then you can't keep lying
about what it does. Other people could look at the enourmous trace and
filter it the way THEY want to see what is actually happening and show
the errors you are hidding behind your smoke and mirrors.

If people can't understand your code, then what is the harm with
releasing it? It will then just remain an impenetrable black box.

You are calling people with actual credentials (which you don't have) as
incompetent, while at the same time saying you need their help because
you can't explain your work to write the article.

Either you are being stupid and asking people who can't help, or you are
actually to stupid to know who actually know stuff.

Either way, you are proving your stupidity.