Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:00:29 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <54747478513fc1e5af2474f8360abf6ff4ea378d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me> <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me> <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me> <vp9ct8$3af6t$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpav34$3jct4$1@dont-email.me> <vpc3u9$3skb7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpcsvk$irt$2@dont-email.me> <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpfmpp$j7qb$6@dont-email.me> <vphbnb$10gus$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpivp4$1fvqe$6@dont-email.me> <vpklrk$21jn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vplbnp$25vp2$5@dont-email.me>
 <b122ed1dc2c636321627d4dfc7936e463f920690@i2pn2.org>
 <vpltcn$28j3a$6@dont-email.me>
 <a8b150912bc326cd01c9e9ee89762d12b9fc571e@i2pn2.org>
 <vpm6hq$2dvrs$4@dont-email.me> <vpmo1m$2g3p0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vpn9m5$2jkdj$5@dont-email.me>
 <f556d553eddd6abf8673b902a2e0c51ded0e6423@i2pn2.org>
 <vporib$2vaf3$8@dont-email.me> <vppch2$323f6$3@dont-email.me>
 <vpqh0p$38ma4$1@dont-email.me>
 <b91d3af00fa332dd51ca2ac3932c2a721d2a4032@i2pn2.org>
 <vpqsfq$3agh2$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 01:00:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2112681"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vpqsfq$3agh2$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 2/27/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2025 2:45 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:13:13 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/27/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.feb.2025 om 06:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/26/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/25 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/2025 3:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 26.feb.2025 om 05:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You already know that you are stupidly wrong about the emulation
>>>>>>>>> being incorrect or you would have provided the correct emulation
>>>>>>>>> sequence long ago.
>>
>>>>>>>>> What are the first 15 lines of DD correctly emulated by HHH?
>>>>>>>> The error in the simulation occurs already at the 5th instruction,
>>>>>>>> the 'call 000015c3'. Instead of simulating this instruction,
>>>>>>> You dodged the actual question.
>>>>>>> What are the correct first 15 lines of DD emulated by HHH.
>>>>>> And you are missing the point that HHH can not correctly emulate 15
>>>>>> line of this DD, as it is missing information and thus the task is
>>>>>> improperly defined.
>>>>> If we assume that HHH emulates the above machine code then there is
>>>>> NO MORE relevant information needed and we know that machine address
>>>>> 0000213c of DD is followed by machine address 00002133 of DD.
> 
>> No. Relevant information includes the code at address 0x213c and
>> everything it points to.
>>
> 
> _DD()
> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002155] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
> 
> THE ONLY FREAKING THING THAT NEED BE KNOWN
> ABOUT THE CODE AT THAT ADDRESS
> (TO DETERMINE THE SEQUENCE OF MACHINE INSTRUCTIONS OF DD)
> IS THAT IT EMULATES THE MACHINE INSTRUCTIONS OF DD.

Except that is just a LIE.

It doesn't correctly emulate the machine instrucitons, it only PARTIALLY 
emulates them and returns.

You thin

> 
>  From this base assumption we know that the first
> five instructions of DD are repeated three times
> when the first 15 instructions of DD are emulated.
> 

Nope, that is just impossible, as even if HHH was an emulator, the 
emulator emulating this DD will NEVER get back to that address, it will 
only emulate HHH emulating those instruction

Thus, proving you don't understand what the words you are usiong 
actually mean, and that you are just a pathological liar.

> You won't know thus if you have no idea what the
> term "emulate" means.
> 
>>>> If assuming that following the call would lead to infinite recursion
>>>> (which is not true, because DD has been proven to halt),
>>> If it was true that the above instance of DD reaches its "ret"
>>> instruction then you could show how it does this.
>> Easy. It calls a program that returns *by definition*    .
>>
> 
>