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.theoryDate : 16. Aug 2024, 23:11:16
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <a2f6c8d9e33a1006a2cfff9f50b576e257ef5cb1@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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, you seem to want to use the destination before we get there.
Sorry, you are just being dense and illogical.
YOU are the dishonest one and show the lack of sufficient competence.
Those are just the facts.
…