On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Better repent then.
On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
You continue to assume that you can simply disagree with the x86
language. My memory was refreshed that called you stupid would be a
sin according to Christ.
What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt?But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is incorrect
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that it is correct.
DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)Aborted by HHH, so that it can return.
to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly emulatedExcept for the outer call to HHH from main.
by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Like that an infinite loop doesn’t end?
On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
And the x86 language says the same thing,
YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give
the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation isNope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to the
incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves
that it is correct.
final end.
void Infinite_Loop()
{
HERE: goto HERE;
}
Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are false?
On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:Yes but I won't.
On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Better repent then.
On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
You continue to assume that you can simply disagree with the x86
language. My memory was refreshed that called you stupid would be a
sin according to Christ.
What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt?But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is incorrect >>> when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that it is
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
correct.
Can you show the C code where it aborts?
DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)Aborted by HHH, so that it can return.
to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
Aborted meaning immediately stops running.
At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly emulated
by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
Except for the outer call to HHH from main.HHH stops running after aborting its input.
On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:It would help us immensely in reviewing your work.
On 7/3/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt? Can you show the C code >>>> where it aborts?Yes but I won't.
I updated my repository yet will not cast my pearls before swine.
I have totally proven my case three years ago and only liars will
disagree.
On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:That makes a proof a bit tricky.
Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
Yes but I won't.What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt? Can you show the C codeCan you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
where it aborts?
So that HHH can return.Aborted meaning immediately stops running.DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)Aborted by HHH, so that it can return.
to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
Does that mean it returns or does it call exit()?HHH stops running after aborting its input.At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctlyExcept for the outer call to HHH from main.
emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:Yes but I won't.
On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Better repent then.
On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
You continue to assume that you can simply disagree with the x86 >>>>>>> language. My memory was refreshed that called you stupid would be a >>>>>>> sin according to Christ.
What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt?But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
incorrect
when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that it is >>>>> correct.
Can you show the C code where it aborts?
Because it proves you wrong!
I updated my repository yet will not cast my pearls before swine.
I have totally proven my case three years ago and only liars
will disagree.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 151:52:34 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,815 |