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: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:50:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b1c1fc46c760d4764d3d1c529b4ae89b34ce69f5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9q52r$1tedb$1@dont-email.me>
 <867e1149d7291cfd965b6974aa22f104635f38aa@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qdre$1tedb$11@dont-email.me>
 <d0755e4d97f2c3caebf57ebc856ed8078be3c7dd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qeed$1tedb$12@dont-email.me>
 <116cb41843f55511cf8fa5c2216083136e50c976@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qg05$1tedb$14@dont-email.me>
 <b8d7322ff586ee2776ced1a09090df787d889791@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qmci$1tedb$23@dont-email.me>
 <624e9a80190b25bac34b8e9ddf095ae1c4aa65d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qneu$1tedb$26@dont-email.me>
 <5aeaac6d89bca36e2e2564a2e60b6ed346839aab@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qp4p$1tedb$29@dont-email.me>
 <f742232fdc754b4d1998fbe57d4cbc8b6d07579d@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qqpj$1tedb$31@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 18:50:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9qqpj$1tedb$31@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6436
Lines: 122

On 8/17/24 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/17/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2024 12:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/2024 12:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/24 1:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 11:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 10:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, anyone saying that the above is something that CAN be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by the semantics of the x86 language is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are inserting a word that I did not say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To say that DDD is emulated by HHH means that it must be 
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to validly do that act.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are not going to get very far with any claim that
>>>>>>>>>>> emulating a sequence of x86 machine-code bytes is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you emulate dthe CALL HHH instruction without the code 
>>>>>>>>>> that follows?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Who is the silly one now?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No it has moved up to a ridiculous and utterly
>>>>>>>>> baseless false assumption that is directly contradicted
>>>>>>>>> by the verified fact that x86utm takes Halt7.obj as
>>>>>>>>> its input data, thus having all of the machine code
>>>>>>>>> of HHH directly available to DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And thus, ALL of memory is the "input" and thus any change in it 
>>>>>>>> renders that answer possibly different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are no other words that can be added to my
>>>>>>> words that change the immutable fact of my words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which are just meaningless garbage and a LIE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DDD given can not be "emulated" by HHH, 
>>>>>
>>>>> *just meaningless garbage and a LIE*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what IS the correct emulation of a program that goes off into 
>>>> undefined memory?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do I have to repeat this 500 times before you notice
>>> that I said it once?
>>>
>>> Utterly baseless false assumption that is directly
>>> contradicted by the verified fact that x86utm takes
>>> Halt7.obj as its input data, thus having all of the
>>> machine code of HHH directly available to DDD.
>>
>> But x86utm isn't HHH.
>>
>>
>> x86utm doesn't take "DDD" as its input, but the COFF file that 
>> contains the whole problem.
>>
> 
> Thus DDD has direct access to HHH in this shared memory space.
> 

And thus ALL of memory is part of the input, and thus a change in ANY of 
it becomes a new input, so every different HHH you think of has a 
DIFFERENT DDD they are looking at, so you can't use the results of one 
emuation by one HHH (like the one that doesn't abort) to say anything 
about the behavior of the other DDD (the one that calls the HHH that 
does abort).

This breaks your claim.

Since "DDD" refers to the WHOLE PROGRAM, and its behavior, and NOT just 
the partial behavior seen by the PARTIAL simulation that HHH might do, 
your statement is just FALSE for any HHH that does abort its emulation, 
since the DDD that it is looking at, calls THIS HHH, that aborts and 
returns, and thus THIS DDD will reach its final state and halt, making 
your statement false.

As I have pointed out, "DDD emulated by HHH..." is different than "The 
emulation of DDD by HHH ..." and that is an important difference, and 
one that likely breaks one of your following steps.

Sorry, you are just proving how stupid and dishonest you are.