Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Ben thinks the professor Sipser is wrong
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:01:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <v67k5b$33ve0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v66o6i$2rv8q$3@dont-email.me>
 <8bbce1bb519f205ef865a07719bf35f68170ad61@i2pn2.org>
 <v66psp$2scuh$1@dont-email.me>
 <990598b3a90c559f7125530edef9c5a0ef2c7102@i2pn2.org>
 <v677vh$2u7lu$2@dont-email.me>
 <dbebddf487aebc1c848fc07abb0f7800e068f34e@i2pn2.org>
 <v67d2s$2v7vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <9d7ed80b2fc8e04050d413c3f922ce409d55f31c@i2pn2.org>
 <v67h9h$2vnls$1@dont-email.me>
 <6a841a071e812698de7f236c0acfa127b9e321c3@i2pn2.org>
 <v67ikj$2vtu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <b119fc7a4b5d0599a084a3af604b13ac9782ec11@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 04:01:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f325a973008a37eaa6ec545239278e3d";
	logging-data="3276224"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197WjB8N/dzLVDl6b+W5gFy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WPefWDC4wOqefzK0zI717ig+YUU=
In-Reply-To: <b119fc7a4b5d0599a084a3af604b13ac9782ec11@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3133

On 7/4/2024 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/4/24 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> _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]
>>
>> *In other words you are denying the verified fact*
>> That when DDD emulated by HHH according to the
>> semantics of the x86 language calls HHH(DDD) that
>> this call cannot possibly return.
> 
> No, if HHH(DDD) returns, then by the semantics of the x86 language, and 
> the fact that DDD calls the exact same code sequence as the call from 
> main calls, the call to HHH will return, just after HHH stops its 
> emulation.
> 
> And by the x86 language, the "behavior" doesn't stop just because the 
> HHH stopped emulating the bytes, because the x86 langugage the byte 
> specify doesn't know that will happen.
> 
>>
>> *By denying this verified fact you are affirming*
>> That when DDD emulated by HHH according to the
>> semantics of the x86 language calls HHH(DDD) that
>> *THIS CALL CAN RETURN*
> 
> Yes, just not in the emulation that HHH does.
> 

OK liar I give up.

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