Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #108006
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language |
| Date | 2024-06-29 13:59 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v5pi18$1gd9e$2@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5pdmk$1gd9e$1@i2pn2.org> <v5pfj9$adt$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/29/24 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/29/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/29/24 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Nope, we are not disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language,
>> we are disagreeing with your misunderstanding of how it works.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No the x86 language "knows" NOTHING about H0 being a x86 emulator. It
>> is just a function that maybe happens to be a partial x86 emulator,
>> but that is NOT a fundamental result of it being H0.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It is construed as non-halting BECAUSE it has been shown that your H0
>> *WILL* terminate its PARTIAL emulation of the code it is emulating and
>> returning.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Right, so H0 is REQUIRED to return, and thus if the termination
>> analyser knows that H0 is a termination analyzer it knows that the
>> call to H0 MUST return, and thus DDD must be a terminating program.
>>
>> An H0 that doesn't know this, and can't figure out that H0 will
>> return, but just keeps emulating H0 emulating its input will just fail
>> to meet its own requirement to return.
>>
>>>
>>> <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>
>>
>> Right, and the only definition Professor Sipser uses for "Correct
>> Simulation" is a simulation that EXACTLY REPRODUCES the behavior of
>> the directly executed program represented by the input. Your H doesn't
>> do that, nor correctly predicts the behavior of such a simulation of
>> the input (since that behavior is to halt) so it can never proper
>> avail itself of the second paragraph, so does so erroneously getting
>> the wrong answer.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Except that the "N Steps of DDD correctly emulated" is NOT the
>> definition of the "behavior" of the input DDD.
>>
>> "inputs" Do not have "behavoir", that is a property of a program, so
>> the input only "represents" that program, in this case the program DDD.
>>
>
> *According to the professor Sipser approved criteria YES IT IS*
>
Nope. Where dp you see that in what he says? Remember, you need to
interpret the words by what he means them to say.
His ONLY definition of "Correct Simulation" is a simulation that exactly
recreates the behavior of the program described by the input, and that
in one that does not stop its simulation. So, NOT your "N Step"
So, you are just stuck in your lies, by trying to change the meaning of
the words that others are argeeing to.
> 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.
Maybe you can say that HHH can not emulate the input to the return, but
that is a different claim.
The behavior for only N steps (N determined by the decider) is NOT a
valid definition of the behavior of the input, as it isn't a property of
the just the input. It is a SUBJECTIVE measure, not an OBJECTIVE measure.
>
> _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]
>
Which, as I have pointed out, CAN'T be the sole definition of the input,
as it does not represent a "program, thus showing you argument is built
on deception.
Your "input", must implicitly include the one and only HHH that THIS
input has been paired to.
Either your problem is just invalid as DDD isn't a program at all,
or you are talking about a large (infinite) set of inputs, and you can't
actually talk about any of them individually, and thus there is no *THE*
behavior of *THE* input, as you don't have just a single program you are
talking about,
or, your argument breaks as all your other deciders get this exact input
calling this exact HHH which shows that it will return when you look at
it with another version of HHH, looking that that original input calling
that original HHH and it sees that the original HHH will return and thus
DDD will return.
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