Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Does Ben Bacarisse believe that Professor Sipser is wrong?

On 8/26/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/26/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.aug.2024 om 20:14 schreef olcott:

On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:

  would have halted.

>
OK I got it now.
>
_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]
>
[Correctly emulated] is specified to mean emulated
according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>
Unlike Ben you do not understand that neither DDD
[correctly emulated] by HHH nor HHH called by this DDD
[correctly emulated] by HHH can possibly return to
their caller.

You remind me of somebody who tells the same joke every 15 minutes, because he is short of memory.
>
I said many times that HHH cannot possibly reach the end of its own simulation, which proves that the simulation cannot possibly be correct.

 Ridiculously stupidly directly disagreeing with the semantics
of the x86 language that define what correct simulation means.
 

Like that a call instruction should be followed by the code that is referenced by the call.
YOU are the one disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language.
You have failed to show a reference which agrees with your interpretation.
Sorry, you are just proven to be a LIAR.