Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:45:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <v5h2i4$24jbd$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v5fa29$134dk$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v5fcii$1nsua$2@dont-email.me> <v5gh15$21pcr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:45:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="863b71206377856c10e8f571e9178830";
	logging-data="2248045"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Uoxa4HsyEgpoEU5Qe3193"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HdnQq7RrPWhMocC41Rh/Yqc4O8U=
In-Reply-To: <v5gh15$21pcr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3525

On 6/26/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-25 21:24:34 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/25/2024 3:41 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 11:18:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/22/2024 11:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:16:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 9:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>>>>> Yes, both include HHH0. The second case is boring.
>>> Suppose DDD1 only called HHH1. How would HHH1 simulate it?
>>>
>>>> The fact that DDD calls HHH0(DDD) and does not call HHH1(DDD) changes
>>>> the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH0 relative to DDD 
>>>> correctly
>>>> emulated by HHH1.
>>> DDD does not change behaviour depending on its simulator, that is an
>>> error on the part of the simulator.
>>>
>>
>> No dumbo that is not it.
>> The input that calls its own simulator defines different
>> behavior than when it is simulated by a different simulator.
> 
> The only correct interpretation of the input is the interpretation
> specified by the problem statement. 

In other words you believe that the you have the power to
overrule the semantics of the x86 language.

That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

> If your program interpretes it
> differently then its interpretation is wrong.
> 

If that was not a flat out lie then you could show
the detailed steps of how this is false.

Exactly how does an x86 emulator at machine address 000015d2
emulate DDD such that the call from DDD to H0(DDD) returns?

_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]

So far no one has ever provided these details because
they know that they are lying.
-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer