Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/11/2025 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:*You absolutely refuse to get the gist of anything*On 5/11/2025 9:34 PM, dbush wrote:Which means "some HHH" is a category error. There is only one algorithm HHH and one algorithm DDD.On 5/11/2025 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/11/2025 9:23 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:>On 12/05/2025 03:05, olcott wrote:>On 5/11/2025 8:34 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:>On 12/05/2025 02:12, olcott wrote:>
>
<snip>
>No one here is using any actual reasoning>
in their rebuttals of my work.
I have already shown several places where your 'work' violates the rules of its implementation's language standard,
My compiler disagrees so I can't fix that.
C compilers are obliged to diagnose syntax errors. If they don't, they're not-quite-C compilers. You need to decide whether you're writing in C or whether you're not.
>
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
When testing the proof-of-concept not one line
of my code is relevant. The only thing that needs
be determined is the behavior of DDD under some
HHH
Category error. Algorithm DDD isn't fully defined until algorithm HHH is fully defined.
>
So yes the code is relevant.
Algorithm HHH is fully defined as an x86 emulator
that emulates one or more steps of DDD according
to the rules of the x86 language.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.