XPost: comp.theory
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/26/2025 10:48 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/11/2025 04:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-27, olcott wrote:
>>> The chief editor of one of the most prestigious
>>> computer science journals exchanged about 15
>>> emails with me. The bottom line was that he
>>> could not understand the x86 language well enough.
>>
>> LOL; the obvious interpretation of that is "I will say anything
>> for you to stop e-mailing me, you sick crank".
>>
>
> Or... the chief editor really was ignorant of the x86 instruction set!
> Yes, you'd think that someone in his role would have an idea about how
> processors work (executing instructions, and all that stuff) and have
> some familiarity with x86, but apparently not!
>
> But don't worry - PO is in the process of making a C-interpreter version
> of his argument. Then the editor will have no problem understanding
> PO's argument - you just wait and see!
>
> Or will he? If the chief editor is an ignorant dumbo
Then he wouldn't have been the chief editor of
one of the most prestigious computer science
journals that exist.
> who's baffled by
> x86, who's to say he won't be equally ignorant of "C"? In fact, I'll
> bet that's how it will turn out when PO submits is new revised paper.
> [From PO's perspective at least.] Hehe.
>
The key thing about C is that it is simple
enough that cheaters look ridiculous.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)...
How is this DDD going to reach its "return"
statement by HHH simulating DDD?
>
> Mike.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
