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

Op 03.jul.2024 om 21:23 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 2:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:59 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 1:46 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:37 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 1:25 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 19:58 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 12:51 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:03 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]
>

DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
to repeat this process an endless number of times until aborted
or out-of-memory error.

Anyone knowing the x86 language knows that a program cannot be programmed to do two different things
It cannot do both run out of memory *and* abort.

>
DDD correctly emulated by any element of the infinite
set of every pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own ret instruction and halt.

>
Exactly! Well done! This proves that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. If it aborts, it does so one cycle too soon.
>

>
My system of reasoning could be used to make a chatbot
that would make all the propagandists look foolish even
to themselves. The alternative is the destruction of the
planet to earn a couple of more bucks.
>
This is not some little game that can be played for
trollish sadism. It has consequences.
>

>
I appreciate this motivation, but it does not help to make the simulation correct. Better try something that can help, instead of spoiling your time with something that does not work as you expected.

>
That you lie about how it works does not mean it doesn't work.
>

>
You are too soon with the words lie and liar. It does not contribute to a honest discussion.
That you hope that it works, does not mean that it works, even when your hope is based on an appreciated motivation.

 You are essentially disagreeing with arithmetic.
There is an arithmetic to the meaning of words
and to the behavior of x86 code.
 When I say 2 + 3 = 5 you are not free to disagree
without big a liar. As soon as you disagree THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR
 

Irrelevant. I do not deny that 2+3=5.
But if you claim that the x86 language says that a two cycle recursion must be aborted, then I know who is ignoring the truth.