Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals

On 3/3/25 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 _DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
 DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

And the HHH that correctly emulated DD, can't be a decider and answer.
Also. "the HHH", defined in your Halt7.c doesn't do that, so your claim is based on the belief in a Truth Fairy that can make false statements true.

 The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
own "ret" instruction.
 

Nope, *YOU* the one making the claims, need to show your proof, and answer the questions.
Your failure to do so is just an admission thaty you KNOW you ar just a liar and are deliberately makeing up stuff.
Some of the big ones that you are admitting to be errors because you do not answer them:
How can HHH's simulation of the HHH called by DD be correct when it doesn't match the trace of the execution of the outer HHH, but judt stops the simulation claiming something that has not been proven?
If the behavior of a program can depend on its execution context, as you claim, then where is the first instruction, correctly simulated, where that difference occurs? This simple fact just proves that you are totally ignorant of the basics of Computing, and are working in some hair-brained logic system that isn't valid.
How can HHH be a proper "Pure Program" and still emulate the input you claim to be giving it?
Remember, Pure Programs are not allowed to look at any data that isn't part of their input or derived from their processing of it.
So, If the input is exactly what you show, how can HHH continue past the Call HHH instruction as REQURIED to be a correct emulator when the data isn't there.
If we include the code for HHH as part of the input, your claim that HHH is just an emulator is proven FALSE, as the HHH that is there is the decider that WILL abort its processing an return.
IF HHH is going to emulate the call based on just a description of HHH, then it needs to be a correct description, and since this HHH WILL abort and return, the description of the HHH that DD calls must also be that it will do that, and thus you claims are shown to be just pure lies.
In all, all you have done is proved that you are ignorant of what you talk about, not understand even the basic definitons and rules of the system, but just don't care, because it seems, you are nothing but a pathological liar that has a reckless disregard for the truth.