Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty

On 2/23/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:45:06 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:

>

I have given everyone here all of the complete source code for
a few years

True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that
particular code.

Every post that I have been talking about for two or more years
has referred to variations of that same code.

Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting
something new and fresh.

As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge my key
points I will be done.

Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other.
>

Let's start with a root point.
All of the other points validate this root point.
*Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
*the non-halt status of DD*

Since DD halts, that's dead in the water.

Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man
deception aside:
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally by
reaching its own "return" instruction.

Only because that statement is based on a false premise.
Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement is
just a fabrication of your imagination.

*Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified* It
cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that the
machine code specifies. That most people here are clueless about x86
machine code is far less than no rebuttal at all.

It's not about the machine code. The machine code of HHH specifies a
sequence where simulation is aborted, but you simulate the non-input of
a non-aborting HHH. This is not the HHH that does the simulation.
 

When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot possibly return
to the emulator, conclusively proving that

That's bad. A decider like HHH is supposed to return.

When a decider itself is called in an infinite loop then it cannot
possibly terminate unless a version of itself its emulating this
instance of itself.
In this case the infinite loop instance MUST BE ABORTED.

When DD is correctly simulated by HHH according to the behavior that the
above machine code specifies then the call from DD to HHH(DD) cannot
possibly return making it impossible for DD emulated by HHH to terminate
normally.