Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2

On 7/13/2024 3:48 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:00:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/12/24 7:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:

NONE Of them CORRECTLY rejected itS DDD as non-halting and you are
shown to be ignorant of what you are talking about.
The HHH that did a partial emulation got the wrong answer, because
THEIR DDD will halt. and the HHH that doen't abort never get around
to rejecting its DDD as non-halting.

You try to cut my airtight proof up in little pieces and fail. Every
rebuttal that you make has disagreeing with the semantics of the x86
language as its basis.

Where does it disagree?!

*This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of every
HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of 0000216b and
halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to reject its input DDD as
non-halting.