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: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 04:05:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <df39c8964ec0606945669db5d6803fc317986709@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
	<v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
	<v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
	<7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
	<v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
	<f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
	<v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
	<178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
	<v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
	<168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
	<v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 04:05:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1973943"; 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: 2600
Lines: 29

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:

>>> 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.
Better repent then.

>> 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 is incorrect
> when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that it is
> correct.
What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt?
Can you show the C code where it aborts?

> DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
> to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
Aborted by HHH, so that it can return.

> 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.

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