Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 10/30/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/30/2024 6:17 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in
less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
answering.

>
     I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.  Rather, as
I have previously pointed out, he is playing "Fetch" with anyone who is
prepared to play [which I am not, and nor are most other readers here].
A troll would perpetrate a somewhat cranky idea and then sit back an
watch everyone else argue to and fro without participating further, other
than to stoke the fires occasionally.  Peter will reply instantly to
anyone who will reply to him.  So, sadly, though less instantly, will
several others.  I suspect they are rather lonely attention seekers,
but as I am not a psychiatrist this is not a professional opinion.
>

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
*correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
*or lack of technical competence*
 DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
 

But only if HHH does follow the sematantics, which mean it never aborts.
Since that isn't the HHH that you have provided, all you have done is proved that you believe that lies are appropriate in logic, and you think it is ok to assume the existance of non-existent things.