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 20:56:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <vq0dsh$fht6$1@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$4@dont-email.me> <vq0crn$fhth$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq0dl2$f3k3$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 02:56:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="172b7b2d68946293f9a01cd26ec2afb9";
	logging-data="509862"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+plldgus4B7A7DAIOzaK/e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:awQeJebJIkwWNDnyE+BqHLPwIP8=
In-Reply-To: <vq0dl2$f3k3$10@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5242

On 3/1/2025 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2025 7:39 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> OK asshole if you only want to play head games I am done with you
> 

In other words, you admit you can't explain why it is wrong, confirming 
that you believe it is correct.