Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #108003 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-29 11:09 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-07-01 08:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 129 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 11:09 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 12:45 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 12:17 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 13:59 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 13:06 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 14:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 13:47 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 15:08 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 14:25 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 16:10 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 15:17 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 16:25 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 15:33 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 17:19 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 17:54 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 19:46 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 21:46 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-30 12:02 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 08:34 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 09:07 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 15:31 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 16:37 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 17:55 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-30 11:50 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-30 11:42 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 12:18 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 15:31 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 16:41 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 17:54 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 17:55 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 16:48 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 17:57 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 17:41 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 19:14 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 18:18 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 19:53 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 19:00 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 20:13 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 19:27 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 20:44 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 20:03 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 21:24 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 20:38 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 22:16 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 21:27 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 07:08 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:49 -0500
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-01 15:57 +0000
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 11:03 -0500
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:41 -0500
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 21:54 -0400
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 21:18 -0500
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:32 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 21:58 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:25 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:42 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:00 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 21:21 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:40 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:23 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-02 09:13 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 22:25 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 07:08 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:53 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 11:05 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:51 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 17:00 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 18:04 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 17:48 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 19:13 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-01 09:05 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:44 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-01 16:01 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 11:12 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-02 09:59 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 13:43 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-02 21:22 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 14:48 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 10:26 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:21 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:39 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 09:45 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 10:15 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:46 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 13:26 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 08:41 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 15:06 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:03 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:26 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:31 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:35 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 12:52 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 17:59 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:03 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 19:51 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 12:58 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:25 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:37 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:46 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:59 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 21:15 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 14:23 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 21:31 +0200
DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 15:08 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 22:59 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 16:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-04 09:35 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 10:23 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 18:44 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-03 09:41 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:17 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-04 08:57 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 10:32 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:46 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 16:37 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 09:50 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 10:20 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 20:22 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 10:46 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 08:31 -0500
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 22:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v5vmvv$1oana$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108115 |
On 7/1/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/1/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, >>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>>>>>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>>>>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>>>>> DEFINED. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >>>>>> return to DDD and it will return also. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How can stopping the emulation the first four >>>>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides stop? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not >>>> the behavior of the input. >>> >>> When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior >>> stops. DDD is the input. >>> >> >> Nope. YOU don't understand the meaning of the terms, perhaps because >> you don't understand what REALITY is. >> >> The "Behavior of the Input" comes from the input alone, and doesn't >> depend on the emulator doing anything. >> > > Static strings do not become dynamic processes unless > and until they are simulated. And THAT behavior is of the simulator. Static Strings for Behavior Questions need to represent something that HAS Behavior, which is a program, and the behavior in question will be when that program is run. Your definition doesn't work, as the "Behavior of the Input" isn't a function of just the input, but also of the decider. It is exactly like asking "What is the sum of two plus?" > >> The emulation only REVEALS the behavior to the decider, not create it. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 21:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v5vo6g$1f17p$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108119 |
On 7/1/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/1/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/1/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>>>>>>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>>>>>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>>>>>> DEFINED. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it >>>>>>> WILL return to DDD and it will return also. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How can stopping the emulation the first four >>>>>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides stop? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but >>>>> not the behavior of the input. >>>> >>>> When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior >>>> stops. DDD is the input. >>>> >>> >>> Nope. YOU don't understand the meaning of the terms, perhaps because >>> you don't understand what REALITY is. >>> >>> The "Behavior of the Input" comes from the input alone, and doesn't >>> depend on the emulator doing anything. >>> >> >> Static strings do not become dynamic processes unless >> and until they are simulated. > > And THAT behavior is of the simulator. > > Static Strings for Behavior Questions need to represent something that > HAS Behavior, which is a program, and the behavior in question will be > when that program is run. > Therefore when a interpreter interprets source-code then this source-code remains a static text string that cannot possibly be debugged dynamically because it is just sitting there doing nothing. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 22:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v5vpaq$1oana$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108123 |
On 7/1/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/1/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/1/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, >>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>>>>>>>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>>>>>>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>>>>>>> DEFINED. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it >>>>>>>> WILL return to DDD and it will return also. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How can stopping the emulation the first four >>>>>>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides stop? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but >>>>>> not the behavior of the input. >>>>> >>>>> When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior >>>>> stops. DDD is the input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. YOU don't understand the meaning of the terms, perhaps because >>>> you don't understand what REALITY is. >>>> >>>> The "Behavior of the Input" comes from the input alone, and doesn't >>>> depend on the emulator doing anything. >>>> >>> >>> Static strings do not become dynamic processes unless >>> and until they are simulated. >> >> And THAT behavior is of the simulator. >> >> Static Strings for Behavior Questions need to represent something that >> HAS Behavior, which is a program, and the behavior in question will be >> when that program is run. >> > > Therefore when a interpreter interprets source-code > then this source-code remains a static text string > that cannot possibly be debugged dynamically because > it is just sitting there doing nothing. > No, because the static string represents a program that interpreter can determine the behavior of. It seems you don't understand the concept of representation. Perhaps because you never actually studied real computer science, but were only a hack programmer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 14:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fa167f5ae95fbcccc73021102b40b27f410336ad@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108115 |
Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 20:42:58 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/1/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, >>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >>>>>> return to DDD and it will return also. >>>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not >>>> the behavior of the input. >> The "Behavior of the Input" comes from the input alone, and doesn't >> depend on the emulator doing anything. >> > Static strings do not become dynamic processes unless and until they are > simulated. > >> The emulation only REVEALS the behavior to the decider, not create it. The input describes a program that doesn’t stop when run, regardless whether you actually run it (in part or whole). -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-02 09:13 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v605qd$1hcsi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108078 |
On 2024-07-01 12:49:54 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>>>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO DEFINED. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >>>>> >>>>> _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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >>>> return to DDD and it will return also. >>>> >>> >>> How can stopping the emulation the first four >>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides stop? >>> >> >> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not >> the behavior of the input. > > When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior > stops. DDD is the input. The behaviour specified by DDD is whatever it is, and does not depend on whether it is ever emulated or executed or analyzed. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-30 22:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v5t7j5$tfnv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108066 |
On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard >>> Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>> >>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>> >>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO DEFINED. >>> >> >> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >> >> _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. >> > > And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL > return to DDD and it will return also. > How can stopping the emulation the first four instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides cause them to stop? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 07:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v5u2o7$1mj7k$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108068 |
On 6/30/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard >>>> Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>>> >>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>>> >>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO DEFINED. >>>> >>> >>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >>> >>> _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. >>> >> >> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >> return to DDD and it will return also. >> > > How can stopping the emulation the first four > instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides > cause them to stop? > The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not the behavior of the input. You don't seem to understand that fact, perhaps because you confuse Truth with Knowledge. Emulation doesn't create or define the behavior of the input, that existed at the moment the program prepresented by the input was created. Emulation REVEALS that behvior to the emulator. The only behavior it creates is that of the emulator, not the emulated. You seem to not understand that property of programs, perhaps because you don't understand determinism, which requires a good understanding of what Truth is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 07:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v5u8s7$12udb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108075 |
On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/30/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard >>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>>>> >>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>>>> >>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>> DEFINED. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >>>> >>>> _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. >>>> >>> >>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >>> return to DDD and it will return also. >>> >> >> How can stopping the emulation the first four >> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides >> cause them to stop? >> > > The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not the > behavior of the input. > While your hand is still in the cash register stealing the money you say there is no hand and there is no money. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v5vi6o$1oanb$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108079 |
On 7/1/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/30/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard >>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I had to dumb this down because even the smartest >>>>>>> people here were overwhelmed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator >>>>>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>>> DEFINED. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand why you so stupidly lie about this. >>>>> >>>>> _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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >>>> return to DDD and it will return also. >>>> >>> >>> How can stopping the emulation the first four >>> instructions of DDD possibly do anything besides >>> cause them to stop? >>> >> >> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not >> the behavior of the input. >> > While your hand is still in the cash register stealing the > money you say there is no hand and there is no money. > Non-sequitor, just showing you have run out of logic. You are just proving your ignorance and stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 11:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c932a0dabd6ef1285bc553269e2d61b7d9eabc2b@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108061 |
Am Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:27:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/30/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/30/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT? >>> >> But it does, just after H gives up its simulation. >> You have even show that with a simulation. > DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) > that emulates its own DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) > that is either aborted at some point never returning or hits > out-of-memory error never returning Running out of memory is only a physical constraint of no concern to the theoretical behaviour. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 07:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v665t0$2oun1$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108316 |
On 7/4/2024 6:05 AM, joes wrote: > Am Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:27:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/30/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/30/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT? >>>> >>> But it does, just after H gives up its simulation. >>> You have even show that with a simulation. > >> DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) >> that emulates its own DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) >> that is either aborted at some point never returning or hits >> out-of-memory error never returning > Running out of memory is only a physical constraint of no concern > to the theoretical behaviour. > None-the-less it makes it totally clear that DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <e48d3566931ba5d9a525377407c7446ab31fc8ec@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108327 |
On 7/4/24 8:51 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2024 6:05 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:27:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/30/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/30/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT? >>>>> >>>> But it does, just after H gives up its simulation. >>>> You have even show that with a simulation. >> >>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) >>> that emulates its own DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) >>> that is either aborted at some point never returning or hits >>> out-of-memory error never returning >> Running out of memory is only a physical constraint of no concern >> to the theoretical behaviour. >> > > None-the-less it makes it totally clear that DDD correctly simulated > by HHH DOES NOT HALT. > No, because THIS HHH didn't run out of memery. Your argument just shows you are trying to play a shell game. The problem is that you want DDD to be a "template" that changes as you change HHH, but templates don't HAVE "Behavior" only the instances of them that are programs do. I suppose you could try to work on an extension that just like "Termination Analysis" looks at the behavior of a specific program, but over all inputs, so broadens the halting problem, you could work on a Template version over all instances of the template, but you will first need to figure how to define what is a valid function to make an instance on, as any template that calls a function will become non-halting if that function is just itself non-halting, so the field becomes trivial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-30 17:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged |
| Message-ID | <v5skiq$mvou$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108041 |
On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
>>>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
>>>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
>>>>
>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>>
>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>> {
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>> {
>>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>>> H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>>>>
>>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
>>>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
>>>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
>>>> simulation.
>>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>>>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
>>>
>>> Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged
>>> disagreement.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. I only said the actual truth.
>>
>> 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.
>
> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever
> instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that the HHH
> that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
>
Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-30 18:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged |
| Message-ID | <v5skpk$1kfbr$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108051 |
On 6/30/24 6:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
>>>>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>> H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
>>>>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
>>>>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>
>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>
>>>>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>>>>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
>>>>
>>>> Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged
>>>> disagreement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course not. I only said the actual truth.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever
>> instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that the
>> HHH that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
>>
>
> Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
> Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT.
>
>
And HHH can not report that fact, because, to correct emulate, as
presuemd, it can not stop it emulation.
If it does, it changes the behavior of DDD (remember, the code of HHH is
PART of the code for DDD) and DDD will Halt.
You are just showing you are a stupid LIAR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-30 17:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged |
| Message-ID | <v5snbr$nego$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108052 |
On 6/30/2024 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/30/24 6:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
>>>>>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>>>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
>>>>>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
>>>>>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>>>>>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged
>>>>> disagreement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. I only said the actual truth.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever
>>> instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that the
>>> HHH that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
>>>
>>
>> Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>> Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT.
>>
>>
>
> And HHH can not report that fact, because, to correct emulate, as
> presuemd, it can not stop it emulation.
>
> If it does, it changes the behavior of DDD (remember, the code of HHH is
> PART of the code for DDD) and DDD will Halt.
>
> You are just showing you are a stupid LIAR.
*YOU ALREADY ADMITTED THAT I AM CORRECT*
On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which
> INCLUDES that ever instruction WILL be followed
> by the next instruction, says that the HHH
> that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
*THIS PROVES THAT DDD CORRECTLY EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT*
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are
correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator
HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return.
_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]
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-30 19:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged |
| Message-ID | <v5sorl$1kfbr$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108054 |
On 6/30/24 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2024 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 6:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
>>>>>>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>>> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>>>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>>>>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
>>>>>>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
>>>>>>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>>>>>>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged
>>>>>> disagreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not. I only said the actual truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever
>>>> instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that the
>>>> HHH that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>>> Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And HHH can not report that fact, because, to correct emulate, as
>> presuemd, it can not stop it emulation.
>>
>> If it does, it changes the behavior of DDD (remember, the code of HHH
>> is PART of the code for DDD) and DDD will Halt.
>>
>> You are just showing you are a stupid LIAR.
>
> *YOU ALREADY ADMITTED THAT I AM CORRECT*
>
> On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > What in the sematics of the x86 language, which
> > INCLUDES that ever instruction WILL be followed
> > by the next instruction, says that the HHH
> > that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
Which is a QUESTION, not a statement.
Note the beginning... *WHAT*
>
> *THIS PROVES THAT DDD CORRECTLY EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT*
> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are
> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator
> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return.
Nope, it is a demand for PROOF.
Which you can't provide, since it is a LIE.
>
> _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]
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 09:05 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v5tgvj$utcb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108037 |
On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said:
> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
>>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
>>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
>>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>> {
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>> {
>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>> }
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>> H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>> H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>> H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>
>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>>>
>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
>>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
>>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>>
>>> *A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
>>>
>>
>> Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged disagreement.
>>
>
> Of course not. I only said the actual truth.
>
> 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.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 07:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v5u8c9$12udb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108069 |
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. _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. Once aborted the DDD emulated by HHH immediately stops. At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return. You can understand this or fail to understand this disagreement is flat out incorrect. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v5ujsf$1na1q$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108076 |
Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:44:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: > 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. The x86 semantics say that an aborted simulation returns. >> 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. You are inconsistent about whether HHH returns or not. > DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to > repeat the process until aborted. Once aborted the DDD emulated by HHH > immediately stops. DDD running by itself does not stop. HHH stops simulating it. > At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD emulated > by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return. Where does the outer call to HHH get stuck after aborting? -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 11:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v5ukgn$1550s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108094 |
On 7/1/2024 11:01 AM, joes wrote: > Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:44:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> 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. > The x86 semantics say that an aborted simulation returns. > >>> 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. > You are inconsistent about whether HHH returns or not. > _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. >> DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >> repeat the process until aborted. Once aborted the DDD emulated by HHH >> immediately stops. > DDD running by itself does not stop. HHH stops simulating it. >> At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD emulated >> by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return. > Where does the outer call to HHH get stuck after aborting? > HHH(DDD) returns 0 to main(); -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web