Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- criteria is met

On 6/24/2024 3:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

joes <noreply@example.com> wrote:
 [ .... ]
 

-- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik
sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim

 Or, in English, "You can't do arithmetic with dark numbers.  For actual
mathematics, they're completely useless.".
 Wolfgang Mückenheim is a crank in sci.math and de.sci.mathematik, one of
the few remaining ones after Google shut down their Usenet servers in
February.  He insists on the existence of something he calls "dark
numbers" and gives crank-like justifications for them, which do not hold
up under more robust questioning.
 

In my case people have been disagreeing with the semantics of
the x86 programming language for three years when they have
insisted that D correctly simulated by H must have the same
behavior as the directly executed D(D).
*The following is a dumbed down version that is much more*
*difficult to rebut without looking foolish*
When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
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 H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not
call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1
that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior
as the directly executed DDD().
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer