Re: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth

On 8/17/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 12:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 12:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 1:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 11:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 10:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
_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 is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>

>
No, anyone saying that the above is something that CAN be correctly emulated by the semantics of the x86 language is just a LIAR.
>

>
You are inserting a word that I did not say.
>

>
To say that DDD is emulated by HHH means that it must be possible to validly do that act.
>

>
You are not going to get very far with any claim that
emulating a sequence of x86 machine-code bytes is impossible.
>
>

>
How do you emulate dthe CALL HHH instruction without the code that follows?
>
Who is the silly one now?
>

>
No it has moved up to a ridiculous and utterly
baseless false assumption that is directly contradicted
by the verified fact that x86utm takes Halt7.obj as
its input data, thus having all of the machine code
of HHH directly available to DDD.
>

>
And thus, ALL of memory is the "input" and thus any change in it renders that answer possibly different.
>

>
There are no other words that can be added to my
words that change the immutable fact of my words.
>

>
Which are just meaningless garbage and a LIE.
>
The DDD given can not be "emulated" by HHH,

>
*just meaningless garbage and a LIE*
>

>
So, what IS the correct emulation of a program that goes off into undefined memory?
>

 Do I have to repeat this 500 times before you notice
that I said it once?
 Utterly baseless false assumption that is directly
contradicted by the verified fact that x86utm takes
Halt7.obj as its input data, thus having all of the
machine code of HHH directly available to DDD.

But x86utm isn't HHH.
x86utm doesn't take "DDD" as its input, but the COFF file that contains the whole problem.
You are just proving you don't understand the problem being pointed out, because you are just too STUPID.
The fact you didn't answer my question adds this to the growing list of statements you are just afraid to answer as they prove your whole argument to be a lie.
You define the input DDD to be JUST that code.
You define the HHH is to "Correct Emulate" DDD
Either DDD is more than the definition, or HHH can not do the emulation because it isn't defined.
You are just showing you don't understand what you are talking about.
Your just acting like a 2 year old confirms this.

  Do I have to repeat this 500 times before you notice
that I said it once?
 Utterly baseless false assumption that is directly
contradicted by the verified fact that x86utm takes
Halt7.obj as its input data, thus having all of the
machine code of HHH directly available to DDD.
  Do I have to repeat this 500 times before you notice
that I said it once?
 Utterly baseless false assumption that is directly
contradicted by the verified fact that x86utm takes
Halt7.obj as its input data, thus having all of the
machine code of HHH directly available to DDD.
  Do I have to repeat this 500 times before you notice
that I said it once?
 Utterly baseless false assumption that is directly
contradicted by the verified fact that x86utm takes
Halt7.obj as its input data, thus having all of the
machine code of HHH directly available to DDD.
  Do I have to repeat this 500 times before you notice
that I said it once?
 Utterly baseless false assumption that is directly
contradicted by the verified fact that x86utm takes
Halt7.obj as its input data, thus having all of the
machine code of HHH directly available to DDD.