Path: ...!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 09:45:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <v63o75$27nhv$2@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>
 <v63j94$26loi$4@dont-email.me>
 <db9212dd66972657132755b66b6c473167119450@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 16:45:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179";
	logging-data="2350655"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BY3k1G18Yln4OHYOSli6P"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LjDQpEKxmo/o2j0ERNnboS+lq2M=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <db9212dd66972657132755b66b6c473167119450@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3592

On 7/3/2024 9:39 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:21:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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.
> Which semantics?
> 
>>>>>>>>> It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may
>>>>>>>>> have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.
> If it returns, it doesn’t need to be aborted.
> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
> It is very easy to show.
> 
>> 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.
> But HHH aborts, so the cycle does end.
> 

_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]

As long as it is impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH
to reach its own ret instruction then DDD never halts even
when its stops running because its emulation was aborted.

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