Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant

On 7/3/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:

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?
>

Yes but I won't.

Because it proves you wrong!

 

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.
>

 Aborted meaning immediately stops running.
 

Nope, Aborted meaning the emulation stops emulating.
HHH can't abort the actual running of DDD, only its emulation of it.

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.
>

HHH stops running after aborting its input.