Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 22:40:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vpaq$1oana$7@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> <v5vi6t$1oanb$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vlv2$1b0k9$6@dont-email.me> <v5vmvv$1oana$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vo6g$1f17p$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 02:40:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5vo6g$1f17p$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5080
Lines: 84

On 7/1/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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. YOU don't understand the meaning of the terms, perhaps because 
>>>> you don't understand what REALITY is.
>>>>
>>>> The "Behavior of the Input" comes from the input alone, and doesn't 
>>>> depend on the emulator doing anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Static strings do not become dynamic processes unless
>>> and until they are simulated.
>>
>> And THAT behavior is of the simulator.
>>
>> Static Strings for Behavior Questions need to represent something that 
>> HAS Behavior, which is a program, and the behavior in question will be 
>> when that program is run.
>>
> 
> Therefore when a interpreter interprets source-code
> then this source-code remains a static text string
> that cannot possibly be debugged dynamically because
> it is just sitting there doing nothing.
> 

No, because the static string represents a program that interpreter can 
determine the behavior of.

It seems you don't understand the concept of representation.

Perhaps because you never actually studied real computer science, but 
were only a hack programmer.