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

On 3/4/25 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:

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:

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.

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.

>
Which just show your stupidity, as DD doesn't HAVE its own emulator, and CAN'T know who or if it is being emulated.
>

 It is not my stupidity it is your dishonestly using
the straw-man deception to change the subject away from:
 DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
 

WHich is the strawman, that you are too stupid to recogines.
You have failed to provide ANY reliable source that give THAT critria as an acceptable criteria for a Halting Decider / Termination Analyser.
The ACTUAL criteria, which you just reject in your ignorance, is the behavior of the directly executed, or actually correctly simulated input.
Since DD Halts when run, you are just admitting you are using a strawman.
Also, by failing to provide any proof for your other claims, you have demonstrtated that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological liar.
Yes, DD correctly emulated by the HHH that it calls will not reach its return instruction, but said HHH, like all other instances of it, can never answer, and thus are not a decider.
This PROVES that the HHH that aborted its simulation to give the answer DID NOT CORRECTLY EMULATE its input.
If you want to try to throw out the fundamental rule that a program runs independent of its context, you have shown that you are unable to demonstart where this actually occurs, what is the first instruction correctly simulated by HHH that actually differs from the trace of the direct execution of DD.
Your failure after years to provide it just proves you know the claim is a lie, that you reckless disregaurd.
Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidit, so stupid that you can't understand your own arguments that you don't know what the words you used meant, and you don't care, as truth doesn't really matter to you.