Re: Latest revision of my paper incorporating feedback --- last remaining sticking point

Op 07.aug.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:

On 8/7/2024 3:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.aug.2024 om 16:43 schreef olcott:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction is a mandatory
prerequisite to further discussion.

A correct understanding that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly is therefore enough to stop the discussion.

 That you insist and disagreeing with the semantics of the x86
language seems that you really want to avoid any honest dialogue
and only want to play head games.
 

Again, only accusations, no evidence. Is that how you try to get away with it?
We have clearly proven that HHH deviates from the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting program.
HHH cannot simulate *itself* correctly.
No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end of a halting program.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the simulation incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.
Dreams are no substitute for logic proofs.