Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86
 code
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 19:09:49 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vq0b4u$f3k3$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vptlfu$3st19$9@dont-email.me> <vpug3h$50td$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq06al$eljf$1@dont-email.me> <vq06ja$dfve$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq075c$eljf$3@dont-email.me> <vq08gi$f06n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 02:09:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a4c634d78a3c572e27d924fefebd45f";
	logging-data="495235"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3VMEhiyNSQa3en/Ehb+y9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pCWnmM66ICGMsfkwGV6yK6593BU=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250301-6, 3/1/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vq08gi$f06n$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4833

On 3/1/2025 6:24 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/1/2025 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2025 5:52 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2025 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2025 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-03-01 00:47:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we hypothesize that the code at machine address
>>>>>> 0000213c is an x86 emulator then we know that DD
>>>>>> remains stuck in recursive emulation and cannot possibly
>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>> The emulator itself is stuck and cannot return normally but it doesn't
>>>>> know it cannot return normally. At some point it runs out of memory
>>>>> and terminates normally or abnormally.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes you are correct about this sub-step of two steps.
>>>>
>>>>>> When we add the additional complexity that HHH also
>>>>>> aborts this sequence at some point then every level
>>>>>> of recursive emulation immediately stops. This does
>>>>>> not enable any DD to ever reach its "ret" instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we add an additional complexity we must note that there are other
>>>>> additional complexities that could be added instead.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure we could carefully examine every detail about the price
>>>> of tea in China.
>>>>
>>>> When we are answering the question that seems impossible for
>>>> anyone here to pay attention to even when repeated hundreds of times:
>>>>
>>>> Can the above DD correctly emulated by HHH possibly
>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally?
>>>>
>>>> The answer is dead obviously "no" for everyone that is:
>>>> (a) Technically competent
>>>>    and
>>>> (b) Not deliberately deceptive.
>>>
>>> And by the same logic, no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly emulated 
>>> by F cannot reach its own "ret" instruction, leading to the 
>>> conclusion that there are no natural numbers greater than 10, and you 
>>> are on record as admitting this is correct.
>>>
>>
>> By this exact same reasoning the following function
>>
>> void dbush_is-a-stupid_fool()
>> {
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> Proves that dbush is a stupid fool.
>>
> 
> 
> I'll let you respond to yourself:
> 
> On 7/22/2024 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>  > *Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of clueless wonders*
> 
> 

It was not an ad hominem attack because I know that you
are neither stupid nor a fool. Yet your reasoning was
both stupid and foolish. If you didn't have one post
recently that was very apt I would simply continue to
apply BF Skinner's operant conditioning extinction to you.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer