Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:16:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5t3h4$1kfbr$13@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me> <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5smuk$n7a2$1@dont-email.me> <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sp4v$nnko$1@dont-email.me> <v5sr4t$1kfbq$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5srjn$o1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v5ssaq$1kfbq$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5st66$o7ss$1@dont-email.me> <v5su4q$1kfbr$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sv8o$ogo5$1@dont-email.me> <v5t0h8$1kfbr$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t1af$omq9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 02:16:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1719675"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5t1af$omq9$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3361
Lines: 47

On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard 
>> Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest
>>> people here were overwhelmed:
>>>
>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are
>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator
>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return.
>>
>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO DEFINED.
>>
> 
> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this.
> 
> _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]
> 
> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
> 

And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL 
return to DDD and it will return also.

You seem to be confused by the fact that the outer HHH stopped looking 
at the behavior of its input when it aborted its simulation.

HHH aborting its emulation DOES NOT STOP THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MACHINE IT 
WAS EMULATING.


Also, "DDD" isn't just the bytes you list above, or your problem isn't 
properly defined, as then HHH can not correct emulate its input past the 
call instructions, which is a ERROR you keep on repeating.

THe input to HHH must include ALL of the code of DDD and everything it 
calls, or it isn't a proper input, and you are just shown to have been 
lying for years about that.