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

On 2025-03-04 14:17:56 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 Not true. A sufficient rebuttal is anything that makes a reader to
notice that you have not proven one (or more) of your claims.
 

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