Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Op 06.jul.2024 om 17:10 schreef olcott:Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is calledOn 7/6/2024 10:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH that aborts and halts?Op 06.jul.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott:>On 7/6/2024 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 05.jul.2024 om 17:54 schreef olcott:>On 7/5/2024 10:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 05.jul.2024 om 16:05 schreef olcott:>On 7/5/2024 8:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>>LIAR! I give up on you.
HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
No need to come back, because you are unable to point to any error in my reasoning.
I conclusively proved that HHH is correctly simulating itself
simulating DDD and you simply freaking lie about it.
>Your replies are only irrelevant, or supporting my reasoning. I showed that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly and your full trace supports this, as it shows that the simulating HHH is unable to reach the 'ret' of the simulated HHH.>
>
*Unable to reach ret IS A FREAKING CORRECT FREAKING SIMULATION*
Unable to reach ret *is a freaking demonstration* of an incorrect simulation.
>
If it was incorrect you would have to show which
x86 instruction was simulated incorrectly. You
can't do that because it is a matter of verified
fact that none of them were simulated incorrectly.
Incorrect reasoning.
I commented at the wrong place.
>
The semantics of the x86 language are the only criterion
measure of correct emulation. Only stupid liars would disagree.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.