Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/29/2025 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/29/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 12:23 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/29/2025 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 11:58 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

>
Hang on!  HHH's simulation is not "correct" because the simulated HHH does not follow the same code path as the directly executed HHH.

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
HHH emulating itself emulating DDD is proven
to be correct on the basis that this emulation
obeys the semantics of the x86 language.
>

>
A lie, as you have admitted otherwise on the record:
>

>
I retract everything that I ever said before.
My understanding deepens over time.

>
Nope.
>

 In other words you are a damned liar.
>

A complete non-response to the below, which you dishonestly trimmed.
Your admission stands.

As the below is a failure-to-respond admission, it (and all admissions like it) stands unless the point in question is addressed.
 

On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH