XPost: sci.logic
On 7/6/24 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 3:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 3:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH that
aborts and halts?
Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars.
Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore continuing
to talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do not
feel offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully wrong, if
incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from
DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language
cannot possibly return.
I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly return,
because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE
FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.
I can't tell that you are ignorant or a liar and it is reaching
the point where I don't care which it is.
No, the DDD that HHH simulated MUST return since HHH aborts its
simulation and returns.
By this same reason there is never any reason for you
to go to the grocery store to buy groceries after you
already made up your mind that you will do this.
Why do you say that?
You are just making bad analogies.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)