Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 18:44:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3fbb07515cf4d667eb2fb2ba32e630d2461573f1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5tgvj$utcb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5u8c9$12udb$1@dont-email.me> <v608ft$1hqo6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61hoo$1og2o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 22:44:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1952764"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v61hoo$1og2o$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3955
Lines: 67

On 7/2/24 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly
>>>>> simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even
>>>>> though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/30/2024 7:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > It is still true that the xemantics of the x86
>>>>>  > language define the behavior of a set of bytes,
>>>>>  > as the behavior when you ACTUALLY RUN THEM,
>>>>>  > and nothing else.
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard thinks that he can get away with disagreeing with this
>>>>> verified fact:
>>>>>
>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
>>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
>>>>> return.
>>>>
>>>> It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may
>>>> have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.
>>>
>>> I have never lied about this.
>>
>> At least you have claimed more than proven.
>>
>>> _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.
>>
>> The correctness remain unproven.
>>
> 
> IT IS PROVEN BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE
> THAT YOU REMAIN WILLFULLY IGNORANT OF SEMANTICS OF
> THE X86 LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
> 

Nope, The semantics of the x86 language say every DDD that calls an 
HHH(DDD) that ever returns to main, will eventually return, even if the 
HHH can never see that return.

YOU are the idiot that doesn't beleive the facts before his eyes because 
he refuses to look.