Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)

Op 07.sep.2024 om 15:51 schreef olcott:

On 9/7/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-06 11:20:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/6/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:58:27 +0000, olcott said:

>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
Anyone that is not dumber than a box of rocks can tell
that machine address 0000217f is unreachable for every
DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language where HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.

>
Anyone who really knows either x86 assembly or machine langage or
C can see that the machine address 217f is unreachachable only if
the program at 000015d2, named HHH, does not return.
>

>
That is not exactly true. There is a directly executed HHH
that always returns and a DDD emulated by HHH that calls
an emulated HHH that never returns.

>
There is only one DDD. The emulated DDD is the same as the directly
executed DDD. If HHH emulates someting else then that is not DDD.
>

 I have conclusively proven that DDD, DD, D, PP and P
do have different behavior within pathological relationships
than outside of pathological relationships at least 1000
times in the last three years.

No, olcott has proven many times that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end, but he is unable to accept the result of his own proofs.
The simulation fails to complete, the abort is premature and an incorrect decision is made from the incomplete simulation.

 Since assuming away the pathological relationship that does
indeed exist is so ridiculously stupid I initially called
people despicable lying bastards for doing this.

If the 'pathological relationship' is that D contradicts H, then it is clear that the simulation does not even reach the pathological part of the program. Therefore, there is no relation with the pathological part of D.
If the 'pathological relationship' is that H, or HHH, must simulate itself, then it is clear that D, or DDD does not play a role in it.
        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }
This shows that the problem for an incorrect simulation is within HHH itself.
HHH halts, but decides that it does not halt.
Olcott is unable to accept the truth of his own proof.
HHH cannot possible simulate itself correctly up to the end.

 Now it seems more like people have been so deeply indoctrinated
with the "received view" that you can smack them in the face with
the truth so hard that it will knock them down and they never
notice that you said a single word.
 

Olcott has been so deeply indoctrinated by himself, that he is unable to accept his own proofs. His brain seems to be stuck in repeating false claims, without evidence.