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

On 3/8/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:

>
Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a
simulating termination analyzer specifying infinite
recursion or recursive emulation cannot possibly
reach their own final state and terminate normally.

>
Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the specification that is the halting function:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>
And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification

 *THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE*
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
 It is ridiculously stupid to believe that HHH must
report on behavior other than the above behavior.
 

But HHH isn't the HHH that does an correct emulation, so DD isn't the DD that calls such an HHH, and thus HHH is answering about the wrong input.
Of course, since you admit that you are lying about working in the basic system implied, who know what you actually mean, except that it isn't the actual Halting Problem.