Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? Maybe...

On 7/3/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:

>
You are not paying close enough attention to the exact words
that I am saying. DDD cannot possibly reach past its own
machine address 0000217a no matter what the Hell that HHH does.
>
>

>
OF course it can. HHH might not be able to simulate it getting there,

>
Because the machine instructions provided to HHH specify that
it is not possible to go there. HHH uses an x86 emulator with
two decades of development effort.

>
No, the exact same instructions that HHH used when called by main are in the presentation to HHH by DDD,

 That is false and you are too indoctrinated to notice verified facts.
 HHH1 and directly executed DDD(DDD) benefit from
HHH(DDD) having already aborted its simulation.
HHH cannot possibly reap this same benefit.
 Maybe I need to repeat this in every reply.
 

So? The fact that HHH is just stupid like you doesn't make its wrong answer right.
Where is the difference that actualy occures in the CORRECT x86 simulation?
Remember, x86 simulation means you don't replace the call to HHH with another simulation of the input, as that isn't what the x86 processor does, it needs to be the actual simulation of the x86 instructions of HHH.
So, what instruction does HHH see differently then HHH1 does to allow it to have a different behavior path, other than the fact that HHH just stops at some point.
Maybe I need to repeat THIS at every reply,
That question, in various forms has been out there for years, and you deafening non-answer just shows that you are admitting this claim is just as much of a lie as your recent "Diagonalization" claim where you went form claiming there was a Diagonalization proof that showed Godel wrong, and when pushed for that proof, your reply was that Diagonalization proofs were just nonsense, effectively admitting that you use nonsense proofs as your source of your claims.
Your whole argument is based on LIES, deceit, and ignorance.