Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)

Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:20:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/6/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:58:27 +0000, olcott said:

>
_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]
Anyone that is not dumber than a box of rocks can tell that machine
address 0000217f is unreachable for every DDD emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language where HHH emulates
itself emulating DDD.

Anyone who really knows either x86 assembly or machine langage or C can
see that the machine address 217f is unreachachable only if the program
at 000015d2, named HHH, does not return.

That is not exactly true. There is a directly executed HHH that always
returns and a DDD emulated by HHH that calls an emulated HHH that never
returns.

The simulated HHH is not the same if it doesn’t abort. The construction
works only if DDD is simulated by the decider it calls. This relationship
is broken if you only change one of the HHH’s. They shouldn’t be called
the same.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.