Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 09:42:35 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <v607gr$1hluj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me> <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me> <v5f246$1m2fl$1@dont-email.me> <v5f3fg$1lp16$2@dont-email.me> <v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me> <v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me> <v5h558$24jbd$7@dont-email.me> <v5jcas$2m18t$2@dont-email.me> <v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me> <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org> <v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me> <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org> <v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me> <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org> <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me> <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org> <v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me> <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org> <v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me> <v5rcrh$fkks$1@dont-email.me> <v5s44b$jvgt$2@dont-email.me> <v5tp2t$vsqr$1@dont-email.me> <v5u97g$12udb$6@dont-email.me> <v5vi62$1oanb$3@i2pn2.org> <v5vljj$1b0k9$3@dont-email.me> <v5vocu$1oanb$10@i2pn2.org> <v5vp03$1fbi8$1@dont-email.me> <v5vpht$1oana$8@i2pn2.org> <v5vrac$1fg22$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 08:42:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4828e08c748a13fcd16c5d5792ef20ab";
	logging-data="1628115"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18N5e6sruptCbkEuaUjDG4V"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CmooatlOTs7sHVldpSJt4lyR5E0=
Bytes: 4736

On 2024-07-02 03:14:20 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one cycle too 
>>>>>>>> early, showing that the emulation is incorrect. If that is over your 
>>>>>>>> head, try to learn how x86 instructions work.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> CAN'T BE.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result as the 
>>>>>> program at the input.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics
>>>>> of the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do
>>>>> that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that
>>>>> what I said is true.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct Emulation.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
>> 
>> And denying definitions is just lying.
> 
> It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay
> attention that this definition is contradicted
> by verified facts.

You have never proven that that definition be contradicted by
verified (or claimed or assumed) facts.

-- 
Mikko