| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v607gr$1hluj$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 09:42:35 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 73 Message-ID: <v607gr$1hluj$1@dont-email.me> References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me> <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me> <v5f246$1m2fl$1@dont-email.me> <v5f3fg$1lp16$2@dont-email.me> <v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me> <v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me> <v5h558$24jbd$7@dont-email.me> <v5jcas$2m18t$2@dont-email.me> <v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me> <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org> <v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me> <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org> <v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me> <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org> <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me> <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org> <v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me> <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org> <v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me> <v5rcrh$fkks$1@dont-email.me> <v5s44b$jvgt$2@dont-email.me> <v5tp2t$vsqr$1@dont-email.me> <v5u97g$12udb$6@dont-email.me> <v5vi62$1oanb$3@i2pn2.org> <v5vljj$1b0k9$3@dont-email.me> <v5vocu$1oanb$10@i2pn2.org> <v5vp03$1fbi8$1@dont-email.me> <v5vpht$1oana$8@i2pn2.org> <v5vrac$1fg22$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 08:42:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4828e08c748a13fcd16c5d5792ef20ab"; logging-data="1628115"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18N5e6sruptCbkEuaUjDG4V" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:CmooatlOTs7sHVldpSJt4lyR5E0= Bytes: 4736 On 2024-07-02 03:14:20 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one cycle too >>>>>>>> early, showing that the emulation is incorrect. If that is over your >>>>>>>> head, try to learn how x86 instructions work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CAN'T BE. >>>>>> >>>>>> A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result as the >>>>>> program at the input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics >>>>> of the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do >>>>> that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that >>>>> what I said is true. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct Emulation. >>> >>> >>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH. >>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH. >>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH. >> >> And denying definitions is just lying. > > It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay > attention that this definition is contradicted > by verified facts. You have never proven that that definition be contradicted by verified (or claimed or assumed) facts. -- Mikko