| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v57ok9$5d7$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:01:13 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 79 Message-ID: <v57ok9$5d7$3@dont-email.me> References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me> <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me> <v53b0s$324b4$1@dont-email.me> <v53tjm$35vak$1@dont-email.me> <v565d9$3mg7e$1@dont-email.me> <v56iht$3or0r$4@dont-email.me> <v576d7$3sg5p$2@dont-email.me> <v576k6$3soh6$3@dont-email.me> <v578a9$onl3$16@i2pn2.org> <v579lm$3t97b$2@dont-email.me> <v57b2q$onl3$19@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 02:01:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f19a017657c3e3f4d15756f16e311b4d"; logging-data="5543"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dwQXB/YUi1aJxaEXc1L1F" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:RZJtAGQ2j3pHi7AFMAZciSyCX1g= In-Reply-To: <v57b2q$onl3$19@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4335 On 6/22/2024 3:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/22/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/22/2024 2:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/22/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/22/2024 1:50 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 22.jun.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott: >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD >>>>>> presents >>>>>> to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) >>>>>> that >>>>>> this call DOES NOT RETURN. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD >>>>>> presents >>>>>> to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) >>>>>> that >>>>>> this call DOES RETURN. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We know that 'verified fact' for you means 'my wish'. >>>> >>>> Ignoramus? >>>> >>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is >>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>> DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>> possibly return. >>>> >>>> _DDD() >>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>> When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not call >>>> H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 that its >>>> call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior as the >>>> directly executed DDD(). >>>> >>> >>> By a strict interpreation of your measure, this input has UNDEFIINED >>> BEHAVIOR, so it is improper to ask about it. >>> >> >> That is a stupid thing to say. The behavior of THE INPUT >> is specified by the semantics of the x86 programming language. >> > > Right, so what does a call to a location of memory that doesn't exist do? Liar When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer