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

On 3/5/25 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 5:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/5/25 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

>
But only if HHH is actually just an emulator and not a decider.

 No matter WTF HHH is DD cannot possibly reach its "ret"
instruction and terminate normally when correctly emulated by HHH.
Either this is over your head or you are a liar. There is
no third choice.
 

Sure it can, ifHHH(DD) returns 0, it is just that HHH just can't emulate it to that point, but any correct emulator could, thus proving that the HHH that returns 0 from HHH(DD) could not have correctly emulated DD.
Your problem is that you are just totally ignorant of the meaning of the words.
The "behavior" of an input for this class of decider is the behavior of the program the input represents when directly run. To claim that some other behavior (that differs) is the basis is just an admission that you are a iar.
Your claim that the correct simulation by HHH can differ from the direct exection is a categorical lie, one you have conceeded by not showing the need proof. That proof would be showing an actual instruct that behaved differently between the two, and that instruction needs to be actually correctly emulated by HHH, not some hand wave that because we know that HHH is something (which isn't what HHH actually is) we get this result.
You can't assume that HHH correctly emulates its input to claim you are correctly emulating the input. That claim has no truth-maker, just an infinite loop, which you know isn't a valid argument.
You are just showing you are a hypocrite, as you don't follow your own principles of logic, because it seems one of your real principles is that it is ok to lie if you need to and can assume an impossible,
Maybe that is why you have a problem with that False -> Anything, because your logic lets you assume that False might be true.