Re: DDD correctly emulated by EEE --- Correct Emulation Defined

On 3/22/25 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:

_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 EEE(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 finite integer N instructions of the above x86
machine language DD are emulated by each x86 emulator
EEE[N] at machine address [000015c3] according to the
semantics of the x86 language no DD ever reaches its own
"ret" instruction at machine address [00002155] and
terminates normally.
>

>
Your can't emulate the above code for N > 4, as you get into undefine memory.
>

 I have already addressed this objection dozens of times.
 

No you haven't. You have given several different LIES about it.
As I have pointed out, if you don't include Halt7.c as part of the definition, then you can't do it as you are looking at undefined memory.
If you DO include Halt7.c, then you will only have ONE value of N ever looked at, unless you change your input, and thus you can't compare the values.
Sorry, you are just proving that your "logic" is just a FRAUD based on lying about what things mean.
Note, you prove that you are being intentionally deceptive by the fact that you trim out important parts of the context, thus showing that you know you are lying.