Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:43:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <v61hoo$1og2o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5tgvj$utcb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5u8c9$12udb$1@dont-email.me> <v608ft$1hqo6$1@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 20:43:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be8a74d1ebb79f081dc40b5f7175e5aa";
	logging-data="1851480"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yNmcsXCtdHXTX6PK5z9RP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+EZpdB5l6zZPXi20Eb+3i517GBc=
In-Reply-To: <v608ft$1hqo6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3771

On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly
>>>> simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even
>>>> though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/30/2024 7:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>  > It is still true that the xemantics of the x86
>>>>  > language define the behavior of a set of bytes,
>>>>  > as the behavior when you ACTUALLY RUN THEM,
>>>>  > and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>> Richard thinks that he can get away with disagreeing with this
>>>> verified fact:
>>>>
>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
>>>> return.
>>>
>>> It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may
>>> have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.
>>
>> I have never lied about this.
> 
> At least you have claimed more than proven.
> 
>> _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.
> 
> The correctness remain unproven.
> 

IT IS PROVEN BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE
THAT YOU REMAIN WILLFULLY IGNORANT OF SEMANTICS OF
THE X86 LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

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