Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #108022

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

From olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 21:46 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <v5qgu4$aulp$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <v5pqji$1gd9d$2@i2pn2.org> <v5pr33$31tt$2@dont-email.me> <v5ptp3$1hdtc$1@i2pn2.org> <v5q3an$4rvs$1@dont-email.me> <v5q6c2$1hdtc$2@i2pn2.org>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/29/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/29/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/29/2024 4:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/29/24 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/29/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/29/24 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/29/2024 3:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/29/24 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/29/2024 2:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/29/24 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/29/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/29/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that only applies if H determines a CORRECT SIMULATION per 
>>>>>>> HIS definition does not halt
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> That means the DIRECT EXECUTION of the program represented by the 
>>>>>>> input does not halt, since that is the DEFINITION of the results 
>>>>>>> of a correct simuation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That also requires that the simulation does not stop until it 
>>>>>>> reaches a final state. You H neither does that nor correctly 
>>>>>>> determines that (since it does halt) thus you can never use the 
>>>>>>> second paragraph to be allowed to abort, even though you do 
>>>>>>> anyway, which is why you get the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *N steps of correct simulation are specified*
>>>>>>>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which does not determine the ACTUAL behavor
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you already know that it does prove that DDD correctly
>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH would never stop running unless aborted
>>>>>>>>>> or out-of-memory error
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *proves that you are trying to get away with a bald-faced lie*
>>>>>>>>>> I really hope that you repent before it is too late.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows your stupidity, as the above code has NO 
>>>>>>>>> defined behavior as it accesses code that is not defined by it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Its behavior is completely defined by*
>>>>>>>> (a) The finite string x86 machine code that includes
>>>>>>>>      the recursive emulation call from DDD to HHH(DDD).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But by the semantics of the x86 langugage, the call to HHH does 
>>>>>>> NOT do a "recursive simulation" since that is not a term in that 
>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Call to HHH just cause the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) The semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (c) That HHH is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
>>>>>>>>      N steps of DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't an ACTUALY correct emulation, but only a PARTIAL 
>>>>>>> correct emulation (since correct emulation implies EVERY 
>>>>>>> instruction but a terminal one is followed by the next instruction).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key fact is that PARTIAL emulation doesn't reveal the future 
>>>>>>> of the behavior past the point of the emulation. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with claiming
>>>>>> that professor Sipser made a stupid mistake:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
>>>>>> that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, he just laid a trap that you fell into.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He could not have possibly laid any trap you dumb bunny.
>>>> All of the words were my own verbatim words. It took me
>>>> two years to compose those exact words.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and he could have seen the errors in your apparent 
>>> misunderstanding of the words and accepted them, knowing that they 
>>> were actually meaningless.
>>>
>>>>> The ONLY simulation that Professor Sipser accepts as correct, is 
>>>>> one that shows EXACTLY the behavior of the machine being simulated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you are stupid enough to believe that professor Sipser
>>>> is stupid enough to to try and get away with disagreeing
>>>> with the semantics of the x86 language?
>>>
>>> The question said NOTHING of the x86 language, so it doesn't matter.
>>>
>>
>> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> 
> But the question to Professor Sipser was, as you quoted:
> 
> <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>
> 
> 
> Which said NOTHING about the x86 language,
> 
> So, who is the liar now?
> 
>>
>> _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 cannot possibly
>> return.
>>
> 
> Which wasn't what we were talking about with Professor Sipser, who never 
> saw any of that.
> 
> I guess you just have a major brain malfunction and can't keep your lies 
> straight.
> 
> This just proves your unreliability when it comes to statements

Partial halt deciders constructed for the x86 language
are isomorphic to this termination analyzer build for
the C programming language.

*AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs*
To prove (non-)termination of a C program, AProVE uses the
Clang compiler [7] to translate it to the intermediate
representation of the LLVM framework [15]. Then AProVE
symbolically executes the LLVM program and uses abstraction
to obtain a finite symbolic execution graph (SEG) containing
all possible program runs.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf

Even a Turing machine based partial halt decider is
locked in to the Turing Machine description language.
Is this really over your head?

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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