• Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth V4

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 19 19:09:15 2024
    On 8/19/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/19/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-08-18 12:25:05 +0000, olcott said:


    *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
    *specified as unspecified*

    void DDD()
    {
      HHH(DDD);
      return;
    }

    _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]

    *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
    *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
    *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)

    X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 language
    Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD
    Z = DDD never stops running

    My claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z

    void EEE()
    {
      HERE: goto HERE;
    }

    HHHn predicts the behavior of DDD the same
    way that HHHn predicts the behavior of EEE.


    That HHH <is> and x86 emulator <is> sufficient to
    determine exactly what the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
    according to the semantics of the x86 language would be.

    The last "would be" means that the clause is conterfactual.
    But why would anybody care about the conterfactual behaviour?


    It is not counter-factual.


    Remember, you said: Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
    specified as unspecified

    Therefore HHHn can NOT correctly emulate DDD past the call HHH
    instruction, because it doesn't HAVE the instruciton of the PROGRAM DDD
    (which is what you emulate) since it doesn't have the instruction at
    000015D2.

    The contents of the memory at 000015D2 can not be accessable to HHHn, as
    the input is described as DDD and not DDDn, so the input doesn't change
    between instances, and thus CAN'T contain that memory that changes, and
    thus is not valid to be part of the input.

    Thus we also have that HHH∞ can not exist, so both your premises just
    fail to be possible.

    Sorry, you are just repeating your error because apparently you just
    can't learn.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Aug 20 12:07:30 2024
    On 2024-08-19 12:08:51 +0000, olcott said:

    On 8/19/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-08-18 12:25:05 +0000, olcott said:


    *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
    *specified as unspecified*

    void DDD()
    {
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
    }

    _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]

    *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
    *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
    *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)

    X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 language
    Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD
    Z = DDD never stops running

    My claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z

    void EEE()
    {
    HERE: goto HERE;
    }

    HHHn predicts the behavior of DDD the same
    way that HHHn predicts the behavior of EEE.


    That HHH <is> and x86 emulator <is> sufficient to
    determine exactly what the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
    according to the semantics of the x86 language would be.

    The last "would be" means that the clause is conterfactual.
    But why would anybody care about the conterfactual behaviour?


    It is not counter-factual.

    Then it is incorrect. The meaning of the word "would" is that
    the containing clause is counter-factual.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)