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

On 3/4/2025 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/4/2025 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 12:44 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 04 Mar 2025 10:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/4/2025 9:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.mrt.2025 om 15:17 schreef olcott:

On 3/4/2025 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.mrt.2025 om 04:07 schreef olcott:

>

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally.

I wonder why Olcott keeps repeating that HHH fails to reach the 'ret'
instruction, where the direct execution or world-class simulators
have no problem to reach the 'ret' instruction of exactly the same
finite string as input.

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

And that is exactly what Olcott does not show.

Likewise I never attempt to show exactly how all squares are round.
>

So, my claim remains: HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, where
the direct execution and some world-class simulators have no problem to
reach it.

DD calls its own emulator when emulated by HHH.
DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when emulated by HHH1.
DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when directly executed.

>

DD always calls HHH.
>

>
Thus only has a pathological relationship that changes its
behavior when the code of HHH is replaced with an unconditional simulator and HHH(DD) is run

>
Well of course the behavior changes if you change the code

 DD is the exact same sequence of machine code bytes
executed in three different execution contexts.

That would mean that no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the exact same sequence of machine code bytes executed in different execution contexts, and no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F can't reach its own "ret" instruction, therefore no_numbers_greater_than_10 is correctly reported as non-halting, and because it doesn't halt we can conclude that there is no natural number greater than 10.
Agreed?  If not, explain why the above is wrong.  Failure to do so, either in your next response to this message or within 1 hour of your next post in this newsgroup, will be taken as your on-the-record admission that the above is correct and that you therefore believe that no natural number exists that is greater than 10.