Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
At least you have claimed more than proven.
>

_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.

>
The correctness remain unproven.
>

>
IT IS PROVEN BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE
THAT YOU REMAIN WILLFULLY IGNORANT OF SEMANTICS OF
THE X86 LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
>

 Please, point to the paragraph in the specification of the X86 language that says that a two cycle recursion should be aborted after one cycle.
Claiming that the abort is related to the x86 language is apparently wilfully incorrect.
 

I am not going to show you the trace of the Peano axioms
that prove the 2 + 3 = 5, if you disagree you are a liar
or an ignoramus.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer