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

Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:07 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to the final end.

 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
 Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are false?
 

Your Infinite_Loop does not apply. For a two cycle recursive simulation
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
is a better example. This runs for N cycles. When aborted after N-1 cycles there is no reason to think that it specifies an infinite loop. The abort was only too soon.