Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?

On 8/4/24 2:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:

 >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never

reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>
So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>

>
Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no substitute for facts.
The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
That is the right answer to the wrong question.
I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
reaches its "return" instruction.

>
But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,

 When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
emulation and not and direct execution.

In other words, you admit that you are lying that HHH is actually an emulator, it is just a PO-emulator, and you have no proof of what PO-emulation means.

 DDD emulated by HHH a googleplex levels deep is included
in DDD emulated by HHH.
 

Not emulation, just PO-emulation, and gives an incorrect behavior for the input because it is aborted.

Yo keep screwing around trying to twist the meaning of the
actual words that I say.

Nope, YOU DO. Emulation has a well defined meaning,. which you don't seem to understand. It doesn't "Change Levels". (There is a version where it can, but only for UNCONDITIONAL emulation, which HHH doesn't do if it can abort, so that can't be the version you are talking about).
Sorry, you are just proving how ignorant you are of the things you are talking about, you are now ADMITTING that you have been lying with your use of mis-defined terms.
You have been told that you don't get to change the meaning of terms and stay in the same logic system.
That is just the technique of your father, the master of lies.