Re: Failure to meet this challenge proves that all of my reviewers are wrong

Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 10:48:06 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/2/2025 10:22 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 09:51:56 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/2/2025 8:55 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 08:42:03 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>

I challenged everyone here to provide the machine address by machine
address (AKA line by line) execution trace of DD correctly emulated
by HHH that reaches its own "ret" instruction.
No one made any attempt to do this because they know that this would
prove that they are stupidly wrong to say that my trace is
incorrect.

I did, on thursday at 9pm UTC.

I am asking for a sequence of 10 hexadecimal integer machine addresses
of DD correctly emulated by HHH.

See that post.

Do you not know what a hexadecimal integer machine address is?

Are you a compiler?

On 2/27/2025 3:00 PM, joes wrote:
 > Anyway: ignoring the call to HHH, because it doesn't call DD in turn,
Is counterfactual The actual HHH does emulate itself emulating DD as a
100% totally verified fact.

Calling != simulating. And you only wanted the instructions of DD.

 > we continue with 2141 until the conditional jump, whereupon we either
 > enter an infinite loop (which is more than 15 instructions) or
 > proceed to return (which is 13 instructions), depending on the return
 > value of HHH.

There you go.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.