Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

On 3/8/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:

>
Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no real rebuttal for what others have said.
>

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>
  <copy-paste response>
>

>
>
In other words, you have no rebuttal.

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>
*UNTIL YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND*
*THE NEXT STEP THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES*
>
<copy-paste response>
>
>

>
Doesn't matter, as you've already accepted that your HHH isn't a solution to the halting problem

>
*I never said that*

>
Yes you did, by making no attempt to explain otherwise:
>

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>

>
>
In other words, HHH fails to meet the requirement to be classified as a solution to the halting problem, as you have already admitted.
>

 Erasing and replacing my words with your words
is a real scumbag move.

Not when you gave your official approval to do so after admitting for the record that they mean the same thing:
On 3/6/2025 8:22 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 3/5/2025 11:06 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Last chance:
 >>
 >> Give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is
 >> different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional simulator
 >> and subsequently running Y(X).
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply (or within one hour of your next
 >> post in this newsgroup) will be taken as your on-the-record admission
 >> that they mean the same thing, and that additionally you officially
 >> approve of replacing the former with the latter in any of your quotes
 >> to make it clear exactly what you're talking about.
 >>
 >
 > Let The Record Show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above quoted message:
 >
 > On 3/5/2025 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > No matter WTF HHH is DD cannot possibly reach its "ret"
 >  > instruction and terminate normally when correctly emulated by HHH.
 >  > Either this is over your head or you are a liar. There is
 >  > no third choice.
 >
 > And has not responded to the quoted message above more than 8 hours
 > after he made the above post.
 >
 > He has therefore satisfied the requirements stated above for admission
 > of the given statement.  So:
 >
 > Let The Record Show:
 >
 > That Peter Olcott:
 >
 > Has admitted that the following statement (Statement 1):
 >
 > DD correctly simulated by HHH
 >
 > Is exactly equivalent to the following statement (Statement 2):
 >
 > Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
 > subsequently running HHH(DD)
 >
 > And has given his official permission to anyone responding to his
 > messages to replace Statement 1 with Statement 2 in any of his quoted
 > messages for the purposes of making it clear what he is claiming