Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:38:23 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 03:38:24 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376"; logging-data="809801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/eqgDAJeD8eVtjrlVzMVzL" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JBBcXeZkmt3J0HR4J8rQ1dV7N2Q= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2646 On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >> people here were overwhelmed: >> >> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. > > But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO DEFINED. > I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer