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

On 3/9/2025 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/9/2025 8:50 AM, dbush wrote:

>
It's not an issue.

 _DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
 When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then
 *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
*its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
*because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation*
 I am not going to address any other point until this
point is fully understood because the other points
cannot possibly be understood until this one is totally
understood.
 Whether or not and how it applies to the Halting
Theorem cannot possibly be understood at all until after
the above words are 100% totally and perfectly understood.
 

It is stipulated that a solution to the halting problem perform the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
I am not going to address any other point until this
point is fully understood because the other points
cannot possibly be understood until this one is totally
understood.