Re: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth

On 8/17/24 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 10:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
_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]
>
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>

>
No, anyone saying that the above is something that CAN be correctly emulated by the semantics of the x86 language is just a LIAR.
>

>
You are inserting a word that I did not say.
>

>
To say that DDD is emulated by HHH means that it must be possible to validly do that act.
>

>
You are not going to get very far with any claim that
emulating a sequence of x86 machine-code bytes is impossible.
>
>

>
How do you emulate dthe CALL HHH instruction without the code that follows?
>
Who is the silly one now?
>

 No it has moved up to a ridiculous and utterly
baseless false assumption that is directly contradicted
by the verified fact that x86utm takes Halt7.obj as
its input data, thus having all of the machine code
of HHH directly available to DDD.
 

And thus, ALL of memory is the "input" and thus any change in it renders that answer possibly different.
Thus, HHH to answer correctly must answer about the DDD that calls the HHH that is there.
Since DDD will halt if the HHH that it calls returns, an HHH that returns the non-hatling answer can't be correct about the DDD that calls it.
Also, you just said that "x85utm" has access to all the data, but your question is about "HHH" which is supposed to be a "pure function" and thus can ony depend on "its input", so you are caught in your own lies.
(Let alone the fact that your actual HHH fails to meet that requirement).
So, all you have done is demonstrate that you are talking with "forked toungue" and don't mean what you say.
Sorry, you are just burying your reputation under all your lies.