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

On 3/5/2025 3:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 04 Mar 2025 23:09:42 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/4/2025 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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:

 

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.

I will show that it is not straw-man after you quit dodging that
point.

Wrong order,

I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY OTHER ORDER

lol "I will explain why this is your argument after you agree to it" smh
 

When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) (its own emulator)
it tells HHH to emulate itself again in recursive emulation
until aborted because DD is calling its own emulator.
When DD emulated by HHH1 calls HHH(DD) (not its own emulator)
it tells HHH to emulate itself again yet not in recursive
emulation because DD is NOT calling its own emulator.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer