Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH

On 2024-07-02 03:14:20 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott:

 _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 cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one cycle too early, showing that the emulation is incorrect. If that is over your head, try to learn how x86 instructions work.

 _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.
 

 CAN'T BE.
 A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result as the program at the input.
 

 Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics
of the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do
that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that
what I said is true.
 

 Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct Emulation.

  WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.

 And denying definitions is just lying.

 It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay
attention that this definition is contradicted
by verified facts.

You have never proven that that definition be contradicted by
verified (or claimed or assumed) facts.
--
Mikko