Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:26:06 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4bab17f6a6b64fce08359d2c1682df9f804c70e1@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> <v61k27$1oec9$3@dont-email.me>
	<v61li2$1p1uo$2@dont-email.me> <v63205$23ohl$1@dont-email.me>
	<v63j94$26loi$4@dont-email.me>
	<db9212dd66972657132755b66b6c473167119450@i2pn2.org>
	<v63o75$27nhv$2@dont-email.me>
	<6ca7c213b3ec5e20ae45c951ea48fbffcf5aae91@i2pn2.org>
	<v665in$2oun1$7@dont-email.me>
	<b36744609d2139c1264ecb8d6e348c1f4b68787e@i2pn2.org>
	<v668q2$2pc84$2@dont-email.me>
	<fed395812e5aba83d82749fb270ba74eee94f5be@i2pn2.org>
	<v66h3t$2qr6f$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:26:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2138841"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3837
Lines: 46

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:03:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:

> On 7/4/2024 10:06 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:41:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/4/2024 8:26 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:46:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:15 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 09:45:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:39 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:21:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Which semantics?
>>>>>> I repeat.
>>>> What x86 semantics say that HHH can’t return?
>> Hello?

>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that
>>>>>>>>> emulates DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> in a cycle that cannot end unless aborted.
>>>>>>>> But HHH aborts, so the cycle does end.
>>>>>>> As long as it is impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to
>>>>>>> reach its own ret instruction then DDD never halts even when its
>>>>>>> stops running because its emulation was aborted.
>>>>>> HHH halts by definition. Why can’t DDD?
>>>>> By definition DDD calls its simulator.
>>>> Yes, and nothing else. So when HHH returns, so does DDD.
>>> *Machine address 00002174 of DDD is never reached*
>> Why not? Clearly HHH halts. Does it not return or what?
> The semantics of the x86 language proves that DDD correctly emulated by
> HHH cannot possibly reach its own machine address 00002183.
What semantics am I disagreeing with? Doesn’t HHH halt?

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.