Re: A state transition diagram proves ...

On 10/17/24 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:

_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]
 When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language DDD cannot
possibly reach its own machine address [00002183]
no matter what HHH does.
 +-->[00002172]-->[00002173]-->[00002175]-->[0000217a]--+
+------------------------------------------------------+
 That may not line up that same way when view
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_diagram
 

Except that 0000217a doesn't go to 00002172, but to 000015d2
In fact, the correct emulation of the program will NEVER have the actual program counter of that context have the value of 00002172 again after it does that first step, and never be 0000217a after it executes that instruction.
You are just showing that you arguement is based on lies, and deceit, and total stupidity.
The emulation of emulation of DDD by the emulated HHH never actually gets to that address in this context, only in the virtual context of the machine being emulated.