Sujet : Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction
De : abc (at) *nospam* def.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 05. Aug 2024, 04:58:29
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v8pil5$g6tu$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/4/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly
emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction.
>
No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely without aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that DDD will be non-halting.
>
>
See there?
>
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
C expert knows this.
But that only apply to the PROGRAM DDD built from an HHH that never aborts.
No it does not and every C expert knows that it does not.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…