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: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 07:46:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <v665in$2oun1$7@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>
 <v63o75$27nhv$2@dont-email.me>
 <6ca7c213b3ec5e20ae45c951ea48fbffcf5aae91@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:46:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="2915041"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+C4GnMAINe+nRFUXQ5+7p3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:g3X/qJnBXUkyBS7CAMX8UUH2Bkg=
In-Reply-To: <6ca7c213b3ec5e20ae45c951ea48fbffcf5aae91@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2978

On 7/4/2024 5:15 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 09:45:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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?
> I repeat.
> 
>>>> 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.
>> 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.
> HHH halts by definition. Why can’t DDD?
> 

By definition DDD calls it simulator.

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