Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Kicking the straw-man deception out on its ass

Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 22:19:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/2/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/2/25 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/2/2025 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/2/25 4:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/2/2025 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/2/25 4:21 PM, olcott wrote:

WHich only shows that HHH can not correctly emulate its input and
give an answer.
>

The fact that HHH does correctly determine that DD emulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally proves that your claim is counter
factual.

>
You say that, but it isn't true,

>
You keep trying to get away with saying that the fact that DD calls
its own emulator in recursive emulation does not change the behavior
from the behavior of the directly executed DD.

Obviously. DD is fixed.

And you keep on making the claim without evidence!!!!
What instruction acted differently between the to, that was directly
executied and correctly emulated to different results.
 

The call to HHH(DD) from the directly executed DD returns to DD. The
call to HHH(DD) from DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly return
BECAUSE IT CALLS ITS OWN EMULATOR.

Which proves that HHH can't simulate itself, since the rest is the same.

I never said it that clearly ever before.

Maybe you should have.

--
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.