Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 28. Jun 2024, 04:25:37
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5lafh$35a57$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/27/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
That seems to be one of your biggest lies, you claim others are lying to try to disquise your own lies.
You can't show one thing that I have said that is FACTUALY INCORRCT (only that you disagre with them).
I have shown statements of your that ARE DEFINITIONALLY INCORRECT (even if you want to use a different definition, which just isn't allowed, and thus becomes a lie).
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly
emulated by x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer