XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/21/2025 3:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > [ Followup-To: set ]   
   >   
   > In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 7/21/2025 10:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>> olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/21/2025 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>>> olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>> [ .... ]   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>> Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are   
   >>>>>>>>> using.   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.   
   >   
   >>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>> It is also honest and truthful that people   
   >>>>>> that deny verified facts are either liars   
   >>>>>> or lack sufficient technical competence.   
   >   
   >>>>> What you call "verified facts" are generally nothing of the kind.  They   
   >>>>> are merely things, often false, you would like to be true.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> *One key example of a denied verified fact is when Joes said*   
   >   
   >>>> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:   
   >>>>> very obvious that HHH cannot simulate   
   >>>>> DDD past the call to HHH.   
   >   
   >>> Joes is quite right, here, as has been said to you many times over by   
   >>> several people.   
   >   
   >>>> HHH(DDD) does emulate itself emulating DDD   
   >   
   >>> You will have a get out clause from the vagueness of your language, which   
   >>> could be construed to mean practically anything.   
   >   
   >> typedef void (*ptr)();   
   >> int HHH(ptr P);   
   >   
   >> void DDD()   
   >> {   
   >>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>    return;   
   >> }   
   >   
   >> int main()   
   >> {   
   >>    HHH(DDD);   
   >> }   
   >   
   >> Not at all. HHH does emulate the x86 machine code   
   >> of DDD pointed to by P. That is does this according   
   >> to the semantics of the x86 language conclusively   
   >> proves that this emulation is correct.   
   >   
   > That's nauseatingly overstretching things into another lie.  Whatever HHH   
   > might do is far short of sufficient "conclusively to prove" that the   
   > emulation is correct.  To prove that is likely impossible in principle,   
   > that's even assuming you could define "correct" coherently.   
   >   
      
   [00002192] 55             push ebp   
   [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   
   [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192   
   [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH   
   [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp   
   [000021a3] c3             ret   
   Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]   
      
   x86utm is a multi-tasking operating system (that I wrote)   
   that allows any C function to execute any other C function   
   in debug step mode. HHH and DDD have their own virtual   
   registers and stack.   
      
   When HHH emulates the first instruction of DDD it   
   emulates pushing the DDD ebp base pointer onto the   
   DDD stack.   
      
   *That is a 100% concrete example of correct emulation*   
      
   Exactly how is it that you could have construed this   
   as impossible in principle?   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)