Re: DDD correctly emulated by EEE --- Correct Emulation Defined

On 3/22/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:

_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call EEE(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>
When finite integer N instructions of the above x86
machine language DD are emulated by each x86 emulator
EEE[N] at machine address [000015c3] according to the
semantics of the x86 language no DD ever reaches its own
"ret" instruction at machine address [00002155] and
terminates normally.
>

>
Your can't emulate the above code for N > 4, as you get into undefine memory.
>

>
I have already addressed this objection dozens of times.
>

>
No you haven't. You have given several different LIES about it.
>
As I have pointed out, if you don't include Halt7.c as part of the definition, then you can't do it as you are looking at undefined memory.
>

 Your lack of technical competence is showing.
(1) We are talking about a hypothetical infinite
set of pure x86 emulators that have no decider code.
 (2) The memory space of x86 machine code is not
in the C source file, it is in the object file.
 

Then your "input" isn't the C source files, but the memory, and ALL of it, and thus in your (1), each member of the set got a different input (as reference memory changed) and none of those apply to your case with HHH.
You just continue to prove that you don't understand the meaning of the terms you are using, or you are intentionally hiding your fradulant change of meaning of those terms.
Your logic is just build on self-contradictions and thus is unsound.
Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidity and ignorance of what you speak about.