Re: Hypothetical IMpossibilities

On 7/21/24 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/21/2024 5:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2024 om 22:08 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

>
This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>
Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.
>
May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
>
Thanks!
>

>
So you are going to stupidly disagree with this?
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any
pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.

>
Which proves that these simulations are incorrect.
>

 _DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
 *You don't get to be the judge of this*
As long as the x86 machine language instructions of DDD
are emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning
of these instructions then the emulation is correct and
anyone that disagrees is disagreeing with a tautology.
 This correct emulation must take into account the fact
that DDD is calling its own emulator: HHH(DDD) in recursive
emulation.
 

Which INLCUDE the Call HHH which must go into HHH, which means the code of HHH is PART of the imput, either explicitly or implicitly.
There is no other way to "take into account" the calling of an emulator, since there is no concept of an emulator in the x86 language. The emulator USES the definition of the x86 langauge, but isn't part of it.
This seems to be beyound your ability to understand, which is what make you into the ingornat pathological lying idiot with the reckless disregard of the truth, since you ignore the actual definition of a call instruction.
Note, even if you change to a functional emulation where you can replace the call HHH by an equivalent, then you can't do what you want, since HHH isn't a UNCONDITIONAL emulation, but a CONDITIONAL emulation, so that conditionalirty needs to be expressed in the simulation, with a conditionality comment with each instruction it emulates. Failure to have that just make your arguement a LIE.