Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<6ca7c213b3ec5e20ae45c951ea48fbffcf5aae91@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes <noreply@example.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:15:48 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <6ca7c213b3ec5e20ae45c951ea48fbffcf5aae91@i2pn2.org> References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me> <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5tgvj$utcb$1@dont-email.me> <v5u8c9$12udb$1@dont-email.me> <v608ft$1hqo6$1@dont-email.me> <v61hoo$1og2o$1@dont-email.me> <v61k27$1oec9$3@dont-email.me> <v61li2$1p1uo$2@dont-email.me> <v63205$23ohl$1@dont-email.me> <v63j94$26loi$4@dont-email.me> <db9212dd66972657132755b66b6c473167119450@i2pn2.org> <v63o75$27nhv$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:15:48 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2114256"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 2661 Lines: 29 Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 09:45:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/3/2024 9:39 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:21:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:48 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even >>>>>>>>>>> though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees. >> Which semantics? I repeat. >>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that emulates >>> DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD) >>> in a cycle that cannot end unless aborted. >> But HHH aborts, so the cycle does end. > As long as it is impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to reach > its own ret instruction then DDD never halts even when its stops running > because its emulation was aborted. HHH halts by definition. Why can’t DDD? -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.