On 5/25/2025 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/25/2025 11:59 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/25/2025 10:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.mei.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:
On 5/25/2025 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-24 01:20:18 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>
So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum that myself and
Peter
Olcott have to fight against.
>
Everything here seems to be dishonesty and protests against dishonesty.
If you could remove all dishonesty the protests woud stop, too, and
nothing would be left.
>
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55 push ebp
[00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d pop ebp
[000021a3] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
Then acknowledge that DDD simulated by HHH according
to the rules of the x86 language cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction final halt state.
Why repeating this bug in HHH?
>
That everyone that understands these things
sees that there is no bug ....
>
That is untrue. The bug is clear to anybody who understands C code.
>
OK then to prove that you are not a damned liar
(you won't do this because you know that you are a liar)
show how DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules
of the x86 language
Which doesn't happen as you have admitted on the record:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
>>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
>>>
>>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
>>
>> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
>> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
>> executing the next instruction.
>>
>> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
>> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
>> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
>> correctly simulate DD.
>
> Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
> newsgroup after the above message:
>
> On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
> > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
> > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
> >
> > You are taking
> > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
> > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
>
> And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
> instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
> instruction other than HLT.
>
> Therefore, as per the above criteria:
>
> LET THE RECORD SHOW
>
> That Peter Olcott
>
> Has *officially* admitted
>
> That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH
.... makes your statement the kind of reckless disregard for the truth
that loses defamation cases.
>
Poppycock!
>
In other words by objective standards: YOU ARE A LIAR
>
What do you understand about objective standards? Evidently, very
little.
>
We know that HHH is unable to reach the reachable 'ret' instruction.
We also know that it not possible to repair HHH. It is impossible for
HHH to simulate itself.
>
It is also a verified fact that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD
thus again you are proven to be a liar.
>
No, it is you who is the liar. You lie continually by calling things you
would like to be true "verified facts", regardless of the fact that these
assertions have never been verified by anybody other than yourself.
>
I have fully operational code of HHH correctly
simulating itself simulating DDD dipshit.
A lie, as you have admitted otherwise on the record:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
>>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
>>>
>>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
>>
>> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
>> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
>> executing the next instruction.
>>
>> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
>> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
>> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
>> correctly simulate DD.
>
> Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
> newsgroup after the above message:
>
> On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
> > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
> > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
> >
> > You are taking
> > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
> > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
>
> And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
> instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
> instruction other than HLT.
>
> Therefore, as per the above criteria:
>
> LET THE RECORD SHOW
>
> That Peter Olcott
>
> Has *officially* admitted
>
> That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH