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

On 3/7/25 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott:

On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott:

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.

>
Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction,

>
Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception.
>

>
No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction.

 Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject
WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Which is what you have admitted your whole argument is based on. You publicly admitted that you are ignoring the actual definitions of art in the theory, and are using some other meanings, and thus NOTHING you say is applicable to the theory you claim to be talking about.
If you want to talk about another system, you need to complete your definition of it, and show that it is actually useful so others might look at it.
So far, it has just been used as an excuse to commit fraud and lie about what you are talking about.

 

If not true, show how HHH reaches the 'ret' instruction.