Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:36:14 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <39c74e68a47f768d432f5528493b6db9b946ea83@i2pn2.org> <65d495d5d1da61e1bff8426a80fb7d6b046a7f71@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 04:36:15 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="20ace5cd11c623d10ff4d0058b663d12"; logging-data="829429"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+cx1jCzspt8Hxb0Sp/qGug" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:EMR/WZTSAYYnmQey74umzpeEJQ0= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250223-4, 2/23/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 6190 On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/23/25 12:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 2/22/2025 8:41 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 2/22/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source code >>>>>>>>>>>> for a few >>>>>>>>>>>> years >>>>>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that >>>>>>>>>>> particular code. >>>>>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or more >>>>>>>>>> years has >>>>>>>>>> referred to variations of that same code. >>>>>>>>> Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting >>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>> new and fresh. >>>>>>>> As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge my key >>>>>>>> points I will be done. >>>>>>> Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's start with a root point. >>>>>>>> All of the other points validate this root point. >>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines* >>>>>>>> *the non-halt status of DD* >>>>>>> Since DD halts, that's dead in the water. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man >>>>>> deception aside: >>>>>> >>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>>>> normally by reaching its own "return" instruction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only because that statement is based on a false premise. >>>>> >>>>> Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement is >>>>> just a fabrication of your imagination. >>>> >>>> *Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified* >>>> It cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that the >>>> machine code specifies. That most people here are clueless about >>>> x86 machine code is far less than no rebuttal at all. >>>> >>>> _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 DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot >>>> possibly return to the emulator, conclusively proving >>>> that >>>> >>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>> normally by reaching its own "return" instruction. >>>> >>>> Assuming that it does return is simply stupid. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Similarly, when no_numbers_greater_than_10 emulated by F calls F(0) >>> this call cannot possibly return to the emulator, conclusively >>> proving that >> >> Not true. The stack eventually unwinds after ten emulations. > > Just like a CORRECT emulation of DD would if the HHH doing the emulation > didn't abort (but doing it by the hypothetical of NOT changing the HHH > that DD calls, since that must be the original HHH). > > Your problem is you have lied to yourself about what is a "correct > emulation" In other words you "believe" that the call from DD to HHH(DD) returns when the above DD is emulated by HHH. This is proven to be counter-factual by anyone that understands the above code. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer