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

From	Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups	comp.theory
Subject	Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
Date	2024-06-30 12:02 +0300
Organization	-
Message-ID	<v5r6vl$erg6$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(12 earlier) <v5pr33$31tt$2@dont-email.me> <v5ptp3$1hdtc$1@i2pn2.org> <v5q3an$4rvs$1@dont-email.me> <v5q6c2$1hdtc$2@i2pn2.org> <v5qgu4$aulp$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2024-06-30 02:46:27 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

No, they are not. The input to a partial halt decider takes the that
has two parts: a description of a Turing machine (or, more generally,
an algorithm) and a description of an input to that Turing machine
(or algorithm). The input to a temination alanlyzer is different:
only the first part is there but not the second part. In particular,
the  input to AProVE mentioned below does not include any input to
the analyzed program.

> *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.

What does "locked" mean in that context?

> Is this really over your head?

-- 
Mikko

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