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

On 3/7/25 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/6/25 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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.

>

You used to have enough time.
>

>
That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed twice.

>
Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods

>
_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
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>

>
No,

 You could show the machine-address by machine-address
correct execution trace if i was wrong. You only
dodge this because you k ow that I am correct.

I have reposted YOUR posting of the correct emulation of a minor variant of this DD / HHH pair

 

and your problem is still that you are trying to hold to you admitted FRAUD.
>

 Using ad hominem instead of reasoning makes you
look very foolish.
>

Which just shows that you don't even know that that words means,
I have never used you stupidity to prove that you are wrong, which would be an ad hominem, I have used the fact that you are wrong, and keep repeating that error despite being shown why it is wrong as the proof that you are stupid.
That is NOT ad hominen, just factual rebuke.
The fact that you have admitted that you whole arguent is just one giant fraud as you admit that you are not using the definitions of the system you are talking about just makes all of the discussion moot. Since you have admitted that you don't care about the actual definitions, but are using something different just proves that you arguments are a fraud, and you may well be unable to understand the arguments since you are living in the insanity of being disconeected from the world you are in and just imagining it to be something else.
Until you fix that fundamental problem nothing you say can be taken seriously, as someone who boasts of working with lies should not be trusted.