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

On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:

>
In other words, you know that what you're working on has nothing to do with the halting problem, but you don't care.

>
In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO QUIT THE SHIT!
>

>
You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report that changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator and running HHH(DD) will not halt.
>

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

In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not halt, which you previously agreed is correct:
On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
 >>> possibly terminate normally by reaching its own "return"
 >>> instruction.
 >>
 >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
 >>
 >
 > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.
If you disagree, explain why this is different.
In particular, give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running Y(X).