Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86
 code
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vq0crn$fhth$2@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq0b4u$f3k3$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 02:39:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="172b7b2d68946293f9a01cd26ec2afb9";
	logging-data="509873"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182Dg84jaDdm+8XJz3CjsOk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3FlFM5Hi3t+7h4iV/IYckBHMsZs=
In-Reply-To: <vq0b4u$f3k3$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4720

On 3/1/2025 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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. 

Yet you failed to explain why it was wrong, thereby admitting it was 
correct.