Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:58:52 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 110 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:58:52 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a3d0437002d06bb71b23761906f180bc"; logging-data="637674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/s0d472xhrCeOwYWZj1FA9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:/wrd0zuTkUSoFmUtZHCz049cqTQ= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6178 On 2/23/2025 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. > 0000000000400534 : 400534: 55 push %rbp 400535: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp 400538: b8 34 05 40 00 mov $0x400534,%eax 40053d: 48 89 c7 mov %rax,%rdi 400540: e8 a8 ff ff ff callq 4004ed 400545: 5d pop %rbp 400546: c3 retq Try and show how the above machine code can reach its own address 400545 when no_numbers_greater_than_10 is correctly simulated by F >> >> no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly emulated by F cannot possibly >> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction >> >> Therefore you believe that there is no natural number greater than 10. >> >> Assuming that is does return is simply stupid. >> > >