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

On 3/4/2025 9:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-04 03:07:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

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

>
The question whether DD emulated by HHH exists is too uninteresting that
it would need a rebuttal, and so is the question that does it reach its
"ret" instruction if it exsists.
>

 DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
*Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*
 

And if we assume, as you said, that replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and running HHH(DD) does not halt, then what?