Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

On 6/30/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:

>
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
>

 But it does, just after H gives up its simulation.
 You have even show that with a simulation.
 

Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
  DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates its own DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
that is either aborted at some point never returning or
hits out-of-memory error never returning
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer