Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:21:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/3/2024 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:48 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 20:43 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-01 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/1/2024 1:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-30 17:18:09 +0000, olcott said:

>
Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly
simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even
though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees.

Which semantics?

It is your HHH so you should know whether it returns. Others may
have wrong impression about it if they have trusted your lies.

If it returns, it doesn’t need to be aborted.

Please, point to the paragraph in the specification of the X86
language that says that a two cycle recursion should be aborted after
one cycle.
>

I am not going to show you the trace of the Peano axioms that prove
the 2 + 3 = 5, if you disagree you are a liar or an ignoramus.

It is very easy to show.

DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) that emulates
DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
in a cycle that cannot end unless aborted.

But HHH aborts, so the cycle does end.

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