Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 20:38:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vi6o$1oanb$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me> <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5smuk$n7a2$1@dont-email.me> <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sp4v$nnko$1@dont-email.me> <v5sr4t$1kfbq$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5srjn$o1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v5ssaq$1kfbq$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5st66$o7ss$1@dont-email.me> <v5su4q$1kfbr$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sv8o$ogo5$1@dont-email.me> <v5t0h8$1kfbr$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t1af$omq9$1@dont-email.me> <v5t3h4$1kfbr$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t7j5$tfnv$1@dont-email.me> <v5u2o7$1mj7k$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5u8s7$12udb$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 00:38:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845995"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5u8s7$12udb$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3663
Lines: 55

On 7/1/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard 
>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest
>>>>>>> people here were overwhelmed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are
>>>>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator
>>>>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO 
>>>>>> DEFINED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> _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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL 
>>>> return to DDD and it will return also.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How can stopping the emulation the first four
>>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides
>>> cause them to stop?
>>>
>>
>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not 
>> the behavior of the input.
>>
> While your hand is still in the cash register stealing the
> money you say there is no hand and there is no money.
> 

Non-sequitor, just showing you have run out of logic.

You are just proving your ignorance and stupidity.