Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #108058
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language |
| Date | 2024-06-30 19:53 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v5sr4t$1kfbq$1@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me> <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org> <v5smuk$n7a2$1@dont-email.me> <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org> <v5sp4v$nnko$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 6/30/24 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2024 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/24 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/2024 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-29 16:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with
>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language. That is isomorphic to
>>>>>>>>> trying to get away with disagreeing with arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>>>>> that when H0 emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>>>>>>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
>>>>>>>>> that their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report
>>>>>>>>> that DDD correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive
>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People are trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language by disagreeing that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
>>>>>>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> return.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *A 100% complete and total rewrite of the prior paper*
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing above is or points to any evdence about the alleged
>>>>>>>> disagreement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not. I only said the actual truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard just said that he affirms that when DDD correctly
>>>>>>> simulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) that this call returns even
>>>>>>> though the semantics of the x86 language disagrees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What in the sematics of the x86 language, which INCLUDES that ever
>>>>>> instruction WILL be followed by the next instruction, says that
>>>>>> the HHH that is calld by DDD won't eventually return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you assert that HHH(DDD) called by main returns, then by
>>>>>> your requreement that HHH be a "pure function" ALL copies of it
>>>>>> will do the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the EMULATION of HHH by HHH, but that can not be the
>>>>>> "behavior of the input" as that "behavior" depends on more than
>>>>>> just the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>>>>> Thus HHH correctly reports that DDD DOES NOT HALT.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And then it doesn't correct emulate the input, and thus is a LIAR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You already know that you are the liar here and are
>>> lying about not knowing this.
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are
>>> correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator
>>> HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that the N steps emulated by HHH are not, and CAN NOT
>> be the "behavior of the input",
> They need not be the FULL behavior of the input.
>
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
> H correctly simulates its input D until
And that can NOT be the "Behavior of the Input" as it depends on more
that just the input.
Your question is just like asking what is two plus ____?
>
> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted
But you mean, that H dertermined that IT can not simulate its input to
the point that it stops running.
Also, "Unless aborted" is an illogical statment, as it is a FACT that
THIS H aborted its emulation. Remember, your input D, MUST INCLUDE its
copy of the decider H that it calls, or H CAN NOT CORRECTLY SIMULATE
this input, and thus hus your claim is just based on a lie as premise.
Part of the problem is that BY DEFINITION, "Behavior" is that of a
PROGRAM, so what it does when directly run or completely simulated.
Thus it is NOT true the a correctly (and thus completely) simulated D
would never stop running, so your conclusion is a LIE.
t best you need to rephase your claim, that H can not simulate its input
to the final return.
You FORGET (or never learned or just choose to ignore) that partial
simulation just show partial behavior and do not indicate (by
themselves) behavior past the point the simulation was stopped, and the
NO CLAIM about what happened after can be validly made.
Youj are just proving your utter ignorance of the field that you are
claiming making "revolutionary discoveries" abouyt, which are just the
results of your stupid ignorance.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 11:09 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 12:45 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 12:17 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 13:59 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 13:06 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 14:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 13:47 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 15:08 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 14:25 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 16:10 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 15:17 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 16:25 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 15:33 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 17:19 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 17:54 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 19:46 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 21:46 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-30 12:02 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 08:34 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 09:07 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 15:31 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 16:37 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 17:55 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-30 11:50 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-30 11:42 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 12:18 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 15:31 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 16:41 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 17:54 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 17:55 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 16:48 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 17:57 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 17:41 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 19:14 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 18:18 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 19:53 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 19:00 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 20:13 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 19:27 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 20:44 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 20:03 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 21:24 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 20:38 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 22:16 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 21:27 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 07:08 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:49 -0500
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-01 15:57 +0000
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 11:03 -0500
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:41 -0500
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 21:54 -0400
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 21:18 -0500
Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:32 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 21:58 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:25 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:42 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:00 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 21:21 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:40 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:23 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-02 09:13 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 22:25 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 07:08 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:53 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 11:05 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:51 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 17:00 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 18:04 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 17:48 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 19:13 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-01 09:05 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:44 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-01 16:01 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 11:12 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-02 09:59 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 13:43 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-02 21:22 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 14:48 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 10:26 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:21 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:39 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 09:45 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 10:15 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:46 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 13:26 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 08:41 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 15:06 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:03 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:26 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:31 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:35 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 12:52 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 17:59 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:03 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 19:51 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 12:58 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:25 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:37 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:46 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:59 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 21:15 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 14:23 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 21:31 +0200
DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 15:08 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 22:59 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 16:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-04 09:35 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 10:23 +0000
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 18:44 -0400
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-03 09:41 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:17 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-04 08:57 +0300
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 10:32 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:46 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 16:37 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 09:50 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 10:20 -0500
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 20:22 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 10:46 +0200
Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 08:31 -0500
csiph-web