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

On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote:

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).

 
I may not have enough time left to change the subject and endlessly go
through anything but the exact point.

The purpose of these posts is so that my posthumous reviewers will
understand.