Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 09:41:11 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <v62rq7$22ugk$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> <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: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0286eb983124b0e90ec794fb2c181a3b";
	logging-data="2193940"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18V8cwFMABEl7r+9xIGEOFB"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qn60y7KQ8gMYPRDbCcYozPSCDLo=
Bytes: 3757

On 2024-07-02 18:43:35 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

As long as no proof is shown it is not proven.

-- 
Mikko