Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:31:08 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <6ca7c213b3ec5e20ae45c951ea48fbffcf5aae91@i2pn2.org> <4bab17f6a6b64fce08359d2c1682df9f804c70e1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 18:31:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c"; logging-data="2984141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+lRs6zFhaoj8vsKiw72XyI" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:PclCs4A/QNfqUgkWNJCqZDAabqk= In-Reply-To: <4bab17f6a6b64fce08359d2c1682df9f804c70e1@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4370 On 7/4/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: > Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:03:09 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >> On 7/4/2024 10:06 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:41:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 7/4/2024 8:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:46:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:15 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 09:45:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:39 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:21:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:48 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> Which semantics? >>>>>>> I repeat. >>>>> What x86 semantics say that HHH can’t return? >>> Hello? > >>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that >>>>>>>>>> emulates DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>> in a cycle that cannot end unless aborted. >>>>>>>>> But HHH aborts, so the cycle does end. >>>>>>>> As long as it is impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to >>>>>>>> reach its own ret instruction then DDD never halts even when its >>>>>>>> stops running because its emulation was aborted. >>>>>>> HHH halts by definition. Why can’t DDD? >>>>>> By definition DDD calls its simulator. >>>>> Yes, and nothing else. So when HHH returns, so does DDD. >>>> *Machine address 00002174 of DDD is never reached* >>> Why not? Clearly HHH halts. Does it not return or what? >> The semantics of the x86 language proves that DDD correctly emulated by >> HHH cannot possibly reach its own machine address 00002183. > What semantics am I disagreeing with? Doesn’t HHH halt? > The DDD correctly emulated by HHH in its own process context cannot possibly halt even if another entirely different instance of DDD does halt. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer