Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:39:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <db9212dd66972657132755b66b6c473167119450@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:39:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2014902"; 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: 2712
Lines: 34

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?

>>>>>>>> It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may
>>>>>>>> have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.
If it returns, it doesn’t need to be aborted.

>>>> Please, point to the paragraph in the specification of the X86
>>>> language that says that a two cycle recursion should be aborted after
>>>> one cycle.
>>>>
>>> I am not going to show you the trace of the Peano axioms that prove
>>> the 2 + 3 = 5, if you disagree you are a liar or an ignoramus.
It is very easy to show.

> 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.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.