Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/8/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:That is agreeing with (b)On 8/8/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why do I need to agree to a LIE?On 8/8/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:>>>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
*emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
its "return" instruction halt state.
>
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
>
There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level
every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD
cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state.
>
Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology.
>
>
Nope, it is a lie based on comfusing the behavior of DDD which is what "Halting" is.
>
Finally something besides
the strawman deception,
disagreeing with a tautology, or
pure ad hominem.
>
You must first agree with everything that I said above
before we can get to this last and final point that it
not actually directly referenced above.
>
*Two key facts*WRONG, as proven.
(a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
(b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
>
The SIMULATION BY HHH doesn't reach there,
but DDD does, as DDD is the direct execution of DDD, and "halting" always refers to the direct exectuion or something that behaves identically to execution, like a COMPLETE correct emulaiton.We have not reached that point of the conversation yet
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.