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: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 20:38:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vi5p$1oanb$1@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> <v5t3h4$1kfbr$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t470$t0hj$1@dont-email.me> <v5u2o5$1mj7k$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5u8li$12udb$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 00:38:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845995"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5u8li$12udb$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3785
Lines: 56

On 7/1/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How can stopping the emulation the first four
>>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides stop?
>>>
>>
>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not 
>> the behavior of the input.
> 
> When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior
> stops. DDD is the input.
> 

Nope, the emulation of DDD may stop, but the BEHAIVOR of THE INPUT, 
which isn't dependent on the emulator looking at it, continues, since it 
MUST due the semantics of the x86 instruction set.

You just are stuck in your world of fantasy, and have lost contact with 
REALITY.