Richard seems to continue to blatantly lie -- I hope I am wrong about this

On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 2:20 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]
>
DDD correctly emulated by any element of the infinite
set of every pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own ret instruction and halt. That HHH aborts its
emulation at some point or never aborts its emulation
cannot possibly change this.
>

 No, you are just showing your ignorance.
 It is IMPOSSIBLE to "Correctly Emulate" this input per the semantics of the x86 instruction set as given, as it referncee undefined memory.
 

I already stipulated that the memory IS DEFINED with an
x86 emulator. Also you have seen that I have proven this.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer