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

On 8/16/2024 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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?
>

>
*Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*
*Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*
*Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*

 Which just shows that you are a LIAR.
 If you can't show where I lied, then it is a lie to say that I lied.
 Sorry, that is just the facts and definitions.
 

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
_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]
>
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted*
>

 But your HHH doesn't do that if you mean that HHH COMPLETELY emulates its input without aborting.
 Putting false conditionals on statements makes them worthless.
 Also, what you show is NOT a proper description of the PROGRAM DDD, and it is only PROGRAMS that can be emulated.
 Thus, your who concept weems to be based on a category error.
 DDD needs to include the code of HHH or it isn't a valid input.
 Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you are.
 

Please see my new post. I do not have the time to
deal with any less precise specification.
[Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth]
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer