Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
Op 08.aug.2024 om 15:15 schreef olcott:void Infinite_Recursion()On 8/8/2024 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Indeed. And this correctly proves that the simulation failed, not because of an instruction simulated incorrectly, but because instructions are skipped.Op 07.aug.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott:>On 8/7/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Again accusations without evidence.Op 04.aug.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott:>On 8/4/2024 1:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 03.aug.2024 om 17:20 schreef olcott:>>>When you try to show how DDD simulated by HHH does>
reach its "return" instruction you must necessarily
must fail unless you cheat by disagreeing with the
semantics of C. That you fail to have a sufficient
understanding of the semantics of C is less than no
rebuttal what-so-ever.
Fortunately that is not what I try, because I understand that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
In other words when HHH simulates itself simulating DDD it
is supposed to do something other than simulating itself
simulating DDD ??? Do you expect it to make a cup of coffee?
>
Is English too difficult for you. I said HHH cannot do it correctly.
*According to an incorrect criteria of correct*
You keep trying to get away with disagreeing with
the semantics of the x86 language. *That is not allowed*
>
We proved that HHH deviated from the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting program.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
*emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
its "return" instruction halt state.
>
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.