| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v64327$29pc5$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 19:51:02 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 116 Message-ID: <v64327$29pc5$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> <v61k27$1oec9$3@dont-email.me> <v61li2$1p1uo$2@dont-email.me> <v63205$23ohl$1@dont-email.me> <v63j94$26loi$4@dont-email.me> <v63sh7$28goi$3@dont-email.me> <v63soh$28dpi$4@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 19:51:04 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6cedb142f34e03a5852de86ea322d5ac"; logging-data="2418053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zhPDOtjWnEEVvjEdpgn3b" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:GfwkxbD922xPxSgiK9eRKNc6yHs= In-Reply-To: <v63soh$28dpi$4@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 6605 Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:03 schreef olcott: > On 7/3/2024 10:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:21 schreef 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> >> >> HHH aborts after two cycles. > > That is not what I said. I will make in more clear. > > DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) > to repeat this process an endless number of times until aborted > or out-of-memory error. Anyone knowing the x86 language knows that a program cannot be programmed to do two different things It cannot do both run out of memory *and* abort. So make up your mind. What does it do? And what does "endless number of times until aborted" mean? Does it abort after an infinite number of steps? Make clear what you mean. After how many cycles is the simulation aborted?