Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
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 21:22:46 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <v61k27$1oec9$3@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>
 <v61hoo$1og2o$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 21:22:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="53ee6a76ae1277aa2fa0ccc5a0217e91";
	logging-data="1849737"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JKHkyGGJMIhX/ecor72dc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7dUgCoZwRunIYwZHIYeFHfxH+/0=
In-Reply-To: <v61hoo$1og2o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4041

Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 

Please, point to the paragraph in the specification of the X86 language 
that says that a two cycle recursion should be aborted after one cycle.
Claiming that the abort is related to the x86 language is apparently 
wilfully incorrect.