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

On 3/7/2025 9:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mrt.2025 om 15:58 schreef olcott:

On 3/7/2025 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-06 20:11:34 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/6/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-04 14:26:39 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/4/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-04 03:07:56 +0000, olcott said:

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally.
The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of exactly
how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its own "ret"
instruction.

The question whether DD emulated by HHH exists is too
uninteresting that it would need a rebuttal, and so is the
question that does it reach its "ret" instruction if it exsists.

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally.
*Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*

As "DD correctly emulated by HHH" does not exist

*No one has made any attempt to show that*

Maybe not. Perhaps every demonstration of that was just a byproduct
of some other attempt. Anyway, HHH does not emulate DD correctly to
the end.

Simulating termination analyzer HHH simulates its input DD until HHH
correctly determines that DD cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction and terminate normally.

Indeed, HHH reports that it cannot possibly perform a complete
(correct)
simulation of itself.
This is the only possible correct interpretation of the result of HHH.
Any other interpretation has no grounds.

No matter how many times you stupidly ignore the verified fact that DD
calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation this does not change the fact that
DD cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction because it calls
HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.