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

On 3/8/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/8/25 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-07 15:28:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.
>

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.

>
No ad hominem above.
>

>
Persistently falling go show the line-by-line
execution trace of the correct emulation that
would prove that the emulation by HHH is incorrect
>
BECAUSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT
THE EXECUTION TRACE BY HHH IS CORRECT!!!
>

>
The line-by-line emulation of the equivalemt program has been posted, and was even posted by you.
>

 HHH(DD) is not equivalent to HHH1(DD) and you know that
you are lying about this because you know that with
HHH(DD) DD calls its own emulator in recursive emulation
and with HHH1(DD) DD DOES NOT CALL HHH1.

Right, but the behavior of the DD that they both look at is.
HHH aborts and gets the wrong answer.
HHH1 emulates the input to the end, and get the right answer.

 Maybe I should contact your pastor and tell him
that you are lying? I am concerned for your soul.
 

I wouldn't worry about my soul, I would think about your own.
The fact that your whole argument is based on an admitted FRAUD that you are changing definitions of core terms-of-art just proves you don't know what you are doing,
Remember, THE DEFIHNITION of the behavior a Halt Decider / Termination Analyzer is to look at is the behavior of the machine described by the input when it is actually run.
You are NOT allowed to change that without committng FRAUD.
IF you want to try to claim otherwise, you need to show the reliable sources that allow it. GOOD LUCK.
All you are doing is proving that you are nothing but an ignorant fraud that thinks lying is how to prove something.
Exactly what you claim you are fighting, because it seems you are nothing but a damned hypocrite.