Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts

On 8/16/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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,

 If you insist on disagreeing with the x86
language that proves you are dishonest.
 

Where do I disagree with the x86 language?
That is just another of your unsubstatiated LIES to deflect.
What instruction do I not think should be emulated correctly as the processor will do?
YOU are the one that claims that the x86 language says that a call to HHH isn't supposed to generate the full behavior of the function HHH, but just the emulation it does as if it was unconditional.
Since running DDD will reach its final return, the correct emulation of DDD must also.
Your claims otherwise are just LIES.