Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

On 7/3/2024 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:48 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said:

>
Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly
simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even
though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees.
>
On 6/30/2024 7:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > It is still true that the xemantics of the x86
 > language define the behavior of a set of bytes,
 > as the behavior when you ACTUALLY RUN THEM,
 > and nothing else.
>
_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]
>
Richard thinks that he can get away with disagreeing with this
verified fact:
>
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
return.

>
It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may
have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.

>
I have never lied about this.

>
At least you have claimed more than proven.
>

_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]
>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.

>
The correctness remain unproven.
>

>
IT IS PROVEN BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE
THAT YOU REMAIN WILLFULLY IGNORANT OF SEMANTICS OF
THE X86 LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
>

>
Please, point to the paragraph in the specification of the X86 language that says that a two cycle recursion should be aborted after one cycle.
Claiming that the abort is related to the x86 language is apparently wilfully incorrect.
>
>

>
I am not going to show you the trace of the Peano axioms
that prove the 2 + 3 = 5, if you disagree you are a liar
or an ignoramus.
>

 This change of subject does not hide that your claim that the x86 language proves your claim is incorrect as a verified fact.
 

So you opted for liar then:
_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]
DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
in a cycle that cannot end unless aborted.

I am so sorry for you. You are crying for help, but when serious people are trying to help you, yo don't want to think about their help.
In this way you will never learn and never make any progress. That makes it a sad story.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer