XPost: comp.theory
From: terje.mathisen@nospicedham.tmsw.no
olcott wrote:
> On 12/19/2020 6:22 AM, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 11:57:28 GMT, James Harris
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/12/2020 06:41, Frank Kotler wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Hi Pete,
>>>>
>>>> As moderator of this newsgroup, I am very reluctant to reject your
>>>> messages just because I'm not interested (but I'm not). Woifgang's
>>>> message makes me think I'm not the only one...
>>>>
>>>> Could I ask you to not post on this topic here?
>>>>
>>>> Could I ask Wolfgang (and others) to simply ignore messages you don't
>>>> like? It only takes you a second to click "next".
>>>>
>> Sounds a sensible approach.
>>
>>>> There's an "issue" here. If clax86 is on the lost of newsgroups, it
>>>> comes to my attention. If I reject it - NONE of the messages get
>>>> posted! If it were up to me, it wouldn't work this way, but it isn't.
>>>
>>> Thanks for what you are doing, Frank. IIRC you are the only one who
>>> took up the challenge of moderating this group and what you do for us
>>> is appreciated.
>>>
>>> At the risk of continuing a thread that is already off the topic of
>>> x86 asm I wonder if there's not some way the rest of us could make the
>>> job of the moderator easier. Maybe that's something we should discuss.
>>>
>> Is there any need for moderating? Just ignore any religious posts.
>>
>
> My post was not totally off-topic because the most important part of
> this post is examining the semantic meaning of the execution trace of
> this sequence of x86 instructions:
>
> ---[000005e6](01) 55 push ebp
> ---[000005e7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ---[000005e9](01) 51 push ecx
> ---[000005ea](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ---[000005ed](01) 50 push eax
> ---[000005ee](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ---[000005f1](01) 51 push ecx
> ---[000005f2](05) e8effdffff call 000003e6
--CALL
> [000003e6]
> ---[000005e6](01) 55 push ebp
> ---[000005e7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ---[000005e9](01) 51 push ecx
> ---[000005ea](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ---[000005ed](01) 50 push eax
> ---[000005ee](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ---[000005f1](01) 51 push ecx
> ---[000005f2](05) e8effdffff call 000003e6
--CALL
> [000003e6]
> Input Aborted because of INFINITE RECURSION from [000005f2] to [000003e6]
>
> Every time that the same function is called from the same machine
> address a second time without any control flow instructions in-between
> (within an execution trace) is a case of infinite recursion. This is
> shown at execution trace lines 1-16 above.
>
> People on other groups do not know the x86 language well enough to
> understand that this execution trace does specify infinite recursion.
>
(To any comp.theory readers: I am getting this as scatter noise in the
moderated clax86 newsgroup where it is totally offtopic. :-( )
And you _really_ have no idea whatsoever about mathematical proofs if
you think that dressing your "proof" up as x86 asm makes _any_
difference at all. You could just as well have been trying to refute the
second law of thermodynamics. :-(
A few days ago you even provoked a math guy to explain why your idea is
totally bonkers.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", what you have is
similar to my math teacher in secondary school who thought he had
invented a construction which could trisect an arbitrary angle. Even at
that time (i.e. when I was about 14/15 years old I found it quite easy
to prove that what he had was a method which quickly brought the error
down to well less than his pencil line thickness, but that's like
claiming that a specific rational number is equal to sqrt(2).
Again, this has nothing to do with x86 asm.
Terje
--
-
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
