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: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:16:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org> <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org> <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4hp3r$3viml$1@i2pn2.org> <v4hv85$3021v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4ju8f$222a$1@i2pn2.org> <v4k1m4$3f99u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4k4mt$3fnqu$1@dont-email.me> <v4maeo$3vv3f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4mnim$1qt6$6@dont-email.me> <v4onga$hjo3$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4pbg4$ln46$1@dont-email.me> <v4rdtp$18al3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rvil$1boeu$2@dont-email.me> <v4s9hj$1dnm7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me> <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me> <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me> <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me> <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me> <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me> <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me> <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:16:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="422dd2162c45ab1a09b084523bb5ca66";
	logging-data="1659707"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/jW7ioXiO7SOTqqc7286A"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1q3M+DCqxizDrrDXbgFY8V8sJ8o=
In-Reply-To: <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3259

On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
> 
>> 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.
> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
> 

typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   H0(DDD);
}

_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]

The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.

Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer