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

On 3/5/25 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/5/25 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/5/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:10:00 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/5/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/5/25 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:

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

In other words, you CAN'T handle any other order, even though logically
requried, because you need to hide your fraud.

My proof requires a specific  prerequisite order.
One cannot learn algebra before one has learned to count to ten.
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally.
Is the first step of the mandatory prerequisite order of my proof

What is the next step?
>

>
*DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
*its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>
It has taken two years to create this first step such that it
is the the simplest way to state the key element of the
whole proof and make this element impossible to correctly refute.
>
EVERY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS POINT
IS DISHONEST.
>

>
Before agreeing on an answer, it is first required to agree on the question.

>
Which is the problem, since you don't have the correct question.
>
If HHH is a Halt Decider / Termination analyzer, the ONLY behavior that matters is the behavior of the directly executed program whose description is provided.
>

>
That is a stupid thing to say.
HHH computes the mapping to a return value on the
basis of what its finite string INPUT specifies.
>
THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES
*DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
*its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>
>

 Then your HHH is NOT a "Halt Decider" or "Termination Analyser" as that is not the right criteria for one of those.
 Sorry, but you are just admitting that you last years have just been based on you attempting fraud from your utter stupidity on what you are talking about.
 It might have been excusable if it could have been an honest mistake, but you have deliberately continued to refuse to learn the meaning of the words, and have gone so far at time to just declare that the whole thing is based on wrong principle, but then continued to claim to be working in them,
 You are just so stupid you totally don't see you stupidity.