Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:20:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <v9ojb5$1i745$9@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5c6b0c3bf38cd73a9b84b7d96e2d45a53404dde@i2pn2.org>
 <v9of3l$1i745$3@dont-email.me>
 <40c46fab1b847eb2f82a5df5acf5e4668055eebb@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oi28$1i745$7@dont-email.me>
 <a2f6c8d9e33a1006a2cfff9f50b576e257ef5cb1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 00:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="1645701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6vjTYN6Ti/GItjMHP1Jt2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jF+pcGhgK0vM9hrP4+86C43Nqj8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <a2f6c8d9e33a1006a2cfff9f50b576e257ef5cb1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3392

On 8/16/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/16/24 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/16/2024 4:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/16/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
>>>>>> of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
>>>>>> of the C programming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
>>>>>> because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the 
>>>>> computere science you claim to be doing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We never get anywhere near the computer science because
>>>> people disagree with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
>>>> If they disagree with arithmetic we can never get to algebra.
>>>
>>> If you aren't talking about computer science, then you are using a 
>>> lot of words FROM computer science, which bring in their implications.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I get to the computer science only after people
>> agree to basic facts. When they refuse to agree
>> with these basis facts I write them off as dishonest
>> or insufficiently competent.
>>
>>
> 
> Since your "Basic facts" include terms from Computer Science,

If you insist on disagreeing with the x86
language that proves you are dishonest.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer