Path: ...!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 emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86 code Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:04 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 93 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 02:39:04 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="172b7b2d68946293f9a01cd26ec2afb9"; logging-data="509873"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182Dg84jaDdm+8XJz3CjsOk" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3FlFM5Hi3t+7h4iV/IYckBHMsZs= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4720 On 3/1/2025 8:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/1/2025 6:24 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/1/2025 7:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/1/2025 5:52 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/1/2025 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/1/2025 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-03-01 00:47:58 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> _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 we hypothesize that the code at machine address >>>>>>> 0000213c is an x86 emulator then we know that DD >>>>>>> remains stuck in recursive emulation and cannot possibly >>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. >>>>>> >>>>>> The emulator itself is stuck and cannot return normally but it >>>>>> doesn't >>>>>> know it cannot return normally. At some point it runs out of memory >>>>>> and terminates normally or abnormally. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes you are correct about this sub-step of two steps. >>>>> >>>>>>> When we add the additional complexity that HHH also >>>>>>> aborts this sequence at some point then every level >>>>>>> of recursive emulation immediately stops. This does >>>>>>> not enable any DD to ever reach its "ret" instruction. >>>>>> >>>>>> When we add an additional complexity we must note that there are >>>>>> other >>>>>> additional complexities that could be added instead. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure we could carefully examine every detail about the price >>>>> of tea in China. >>>>> >>>>> When we are answering the question that seems impossible for >>>>> anyone here to pay attention to even when repeated hundreds of times: >>>>> >>>>> Can the above DD correctly emulated by HHH possibly >>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally? >>>>> >>>>> The answer is dead obviously "no" for everyone that is: >>>>> (a) Technically competent >>>>>    and >>>>> (b) Not deliberately deceptive. >>>> >>>> And by the same logic, no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly emulated >>>> by F cannot reach its own "ret" instruction, leading to the >>>> conclusion that there are no natural numbers greater than 10, and >>>> you are on record as admitting this is correct. >>>> >>> >>> By this exact same reasoning the following function >>> >>> void dbush_is-a-stupid_fool() >>> { >>>    return; >>> } >>> >>> Proves that dbush is a stupid fool. >>> >> >> >> I'll let you respond to yourself: >> >> On 7/22/2024 10:51 AM, olcott wrote: >>  > *Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of clueless wonders* >> >> > > It was not an ad hominem attack because I know that you > are neither stupid nor a fool. Yet your reasoning was > both stupid and foolish. Yet you failed to explain why it was wrong, thereby admitting it was correct.