Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:09:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v6k1to$1ga5f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me> <v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee5f2371ef699b2907a5a3d8dc3709889b85284f@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 21:09:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1583279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+L/ss2oXldD/zDc2P4t+B8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IsZIuoF06ILaU8IqgCa1pbbRMwI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ee5f2371ef699b2907a5a3d8dc3709889b85284f@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3602

On 7/9/2024 1:50 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 11:44:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/9/2024 10:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:46 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/9/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 
>>>>>> *When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
>>>>>> *HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls an emulated
>>>>>> HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
>>> And the fact *that* it aborts, makes the simulation incorrect (as
>>> Sipser would agree with), because the X86 code does not specify an
>>> abort at that point. Therefore, the only conclusion must be: No such
>>> HHH exists.
>> HHH is fully operational in the x86utm operating system.
> It does not fulfill the specification. Your HHH is not the true HHH.
> It is bugged.
> 

 From the POV of insufficient technical competence it may
falsely seem this way.

>> When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH
>> calls an emulated HHH(DDD) this call cannot possibly return. This
>> prevents the emulated DDD from ever reaching past its own machine
>> address of 0000216b and halting.
> Are you saying that the called HHH(DDD) does not terminate?
> 

The direct execution of HHH(DDD) always returns.

The actual machine language of DDD and HHH proves that every
call made to HHH(DDD) from DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot
possibly return. That you don't know the x86 language well
enough to understand this is less than no rebuttal at all.

_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]

When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function x86
emulator HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) this call cannot
possibly return. This prevents the emulated DDD from ever
reaching past its own machine address of 0000216b and halting.


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