Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 14:48:17 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 78 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:48:18 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be8a74d1ebb79f081dc40b5f7175e5aa"; logging-data="1869784"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fa11FyFZvThsEJDzF+2z7" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:4/ZC5+KYA34EwwIEy0hIz+4GNoI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4420 On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott: >> On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly >>>>>> simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even >>>>>> though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/30/2024 7:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>  > It is still true that the xemantics of the x86 >>>>>>  > language define the behavior of a set of bytes, >>>>>>  > as the behavior when you ACTUALLY RUN THEM, >>>>>>  > and nothing else. >>>>>> >>>>>> _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] >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard thinks that he can get away with disagreeing with this >>>>>> verified fact: >>>>>> >>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly >>>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly >>>>>> return. >>>>> >>>>> It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may >>>>> have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies. >>>> >>>> I have never lied about this. >>> >>> At least you have claimed more than proven. >>> >>>> _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. >>> >>> The correctness remain unproven. >>> >> >> IT IS PROVEN BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE >> THAT YOU REMAIN WILLFULLY IGNORANT OF SEMANTICS OF >> THE X86 LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. >> > > Please, point to the paragraph in the specification of the X86 language > that says that a two cycle recursion should be aborted after one cycle. > Claiming that the abort is related to the x86 language is apparently > wilfully incorrect. > > I am not going to show you the trace of the Peano axioms that prove the 2 + 3 = 5, if you disagree you are a liar or an ignoramus. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer