Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 14:26:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <v6k2tl$1ga5f$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$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>
 <v6k1to$1ga5f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 21:26:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1583279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19htrcoS35ckeSnC5uALuew"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rASFpkxi9ATEJVymEwqQkXQJS+c=
In-Reply-To: <v6k1to$1ga5f$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4161

On 7/9/2024 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

The x86 emulator is the result of decades of work of
others. The most major change that I made to its code
was so that it could output the disassembled functions
of a COFF object file.

I provided a preprocessor so that it could take COFF
object files as inputs. I wrapped this x86 emulator
in the x86utm operating system that I wrote.

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