Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 08:21:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <v63j94$26loi$4@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> <v61k27$1oec9$3@dont-email.me>
 <v61li2$1p1uo$2@dont-email.me> <v63205$23ohl$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 15:21:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179";
	logging-data="2316050"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MwmHIuVRtNx5STq7eTifa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pYBSJt1uetqCJH5d+nUZninI1sE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v63205$23ohl$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5731

On 7/3/2024 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:48 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am not going to show you the trace of the Peano axioms
>> that prove the 2 + 3 = 5, if you disagree you are a liar
>> or an ignoramus.
>>
> 
> This change of subject does not hide that your claim that the x86 
> language proves your claim is incorrect as a verified fact.
> 

So you opted for liar then:

_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 correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
in a cycle that cannot end unless aborted.

> I am so sorry for you. You are crying for help, but when serious people 
> are trying to help you, yo don't want to think about their help.
> In this way you will never learn and never make any progress. That makes 
> it a sad story.

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