Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant

On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>

Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
kernelization process
https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>
>

And the x86 language says the same thing,
>
YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>
Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.

>
You continue to assume that you can simply disagree
with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that
called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ.
I really want to do the best I can to repent.
>

 But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
 Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
 

You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
proves that it is correct.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly
emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer