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

On 3/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

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*
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in
recursive emulation.
 

In other words, HHH fails to meet the requirement to be classified as a
solution to the halting problem, as you have already admitted.

Erasing and replacing my words with your words is a real scumbag move.