Path: ...!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: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 20:32:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <v5vlb2$1b0k9$2@dont-email.me>
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> <v5vi5p$1oanb$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 03:32:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be8a74d1ebb79f081dc40b5f7175e5aa";
	logging-data="1409673"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wD21l5rEgGIfFALf1qRr+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5UMrEcLzW644LTt+5oZmkI8oYDA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5vi5p$1oanb$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4141

On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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, 

That is a stupid lie. In input is a static string when not
emulated and only becomes a dynamic process when emulated.
*Anyone with anything like a BSCS would know that*

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