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

Op 09.mrt.2025 om 05:25 schreef olcott:

On 3/8/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:

>
Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no real rebuttal for what others have said.
>

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>
  <copy-paste response>
>

>
>
In other words, you have no rebuttal.

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>
*UNTIL YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND*
*THE NEXT STEP THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES*
>
<copy-paste response>
>
>

>
Doesn't matter, as you've already accepted that your HHH isn't a solution to the halting problem

>
*I never said that*

>
Yes you did, by making no attempt to explain otherwise:
>

 *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
 

If that is the only thing you can say, we see that HHH correctly reports that it cannot possible reach the 'ret' instruction of its input. An input for which direct execution and world-class simulators have no problem to reach the end of this finite recursion.
We agree with that. What next? There is no relationship with a halting or termination decider, because they should report about the behaviour of the input, not about the behaviour of the simulation.