Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 17. Aug 2024, 00:50:46
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <141d89d2154841f2ead81119f47a3092ba4878a5@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/16/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>
I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
of the C programming.
>
I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
>
No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the computere science you claim to be doing.
>
>
We never get anywhere near the computer science because
people disagree with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
If they disagree with arithmetic we can never get to algebra.
>
If you aren't talking about computer science, then you are using a lot of words FROM computer science, which bring in their implications.
>
>
>
I get to the computer science only after people
agree to basic facts. When they refuse to agree
with these basis facts I write them off as dishonest
or insufficiently competent.
>
>
>
Since your "Basic facts" include terms from Computer Science,
 If you insist on disagreeing with the x86
language that proves you are dishonest.
 
Where do I disagree with the x86 language?
That is just another of your unsubstatiated LIES to deflect.
What instruction do I not think should be emulated correctly as the processor will do?
YOU are the one that claims that the x86 language says that a call to HHH isn't supposed to generate the full behavior of the function HHH, but just the emulation it does as if it was unconditional.
Since running DDD will reach its final return, the correct emulation of DDD must also.
Your claims otherwise are just LIES.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
14 Aug 24 * Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point163olcott
14 Aug 24 +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point141Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point140olcott
14 Aug 24 i +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point45Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point44olcott
14 Aug 24 i i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point43Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point32olcott
14 Aug 24 i i  i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point31Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i  i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head30olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i  +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head28Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head27olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head20Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head19olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head18Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head17olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head16Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head11olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head10Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head9olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i  +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head7Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head6olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i    +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i    `* Re: point by point --- in our head4joes
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i     `* Re: point by point --- in our head3olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i      +- Re: point by point --- in our head1joes
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i      `- Re: point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head4olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head3Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head2olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i       `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head6Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i  i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head5olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i      +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head3Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i      i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head2olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i      i `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i      `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point10Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point9olcott
16 Aug 24 i i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point8Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point7olcott
16 Aug 24 i i      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point6Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i       `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point5olcott
16 Aug 24 i i        +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point2joes
16 Aug 24 i i        i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1olcott
16 Aug 24 i i        +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Mikko
16 Aug 24 i i        `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point94joes
14 Aug 24 i  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point3olcott
14 Aug 24 i  i+- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1joes
14 Aug 24 i  i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Fred. Zwarts
14 Aug 24 i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point90Mike Terry
14 Aug 24 i   +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1olcott
15 Aug 24 i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point88joes
15 Aug 24 i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes85olcott
15 Aug 24 i    i+* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes74Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes73olcott
15 Aug 24 i    ii +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes1Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes71Mike Terry
15 Aug 24 i    ii  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes2olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii  i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes1Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too68olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii   +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too2Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii   i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too1olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too65Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii    +* Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too15olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    i+* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too13Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii`* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too12olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1joes
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Fred. Zwarts
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too8Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  +* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too4Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i`* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1joes
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i `- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii   `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too2Fred. Zwarts
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii    `- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    i`- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too49Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii     +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts16olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii     i+* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts14Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts13olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts8Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts7olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts6Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts5olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts4Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts2Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i      `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Mikko
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts3joes
18 Aug 24 i    ii     ii  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts2olcott
18 Aug 24 i    ii     ii   `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too32Jeff Barnett
16 Aug 24 i    ii      +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too4olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii      i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too3Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too27Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes10Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point2Mike Terry
14 Aug 24 +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point17Mikko
14 Aug 24 `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point4Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal