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

On 3/8/2025 6:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/8/25 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott:

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:

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
"ret" instruction and terminate normally because DD calls
HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>

No such HHH exists.
The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH
reaches the call to HHH:
1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code of
HHH. This might eventually lead to infinite recursion. So, no
correct simulation.
>

The code proves otherwise
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove that
no different program exists.

The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it actually
does. Whenever anyone disagrees with what it actually does (as
most people here have tried to get away with) they are necessarily
incorrect.

Which is that HHH will look at memory not defined to be part of its
input, and thus HHH is not the pure function you have agreed it
must be.

THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY AGREE OR STFU !!!
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
subsequently running HHH(DD)  cannot possibly reach its own final
state and terminate normally.

Two people with masters degrees in computer science agreed.
Gaslighting me on this makes you look like a complete nitwit.

I think everyone would agree, as you said, that if the code of HHH is
replaced with an unconditional simulator and HHH(DD) is run, that it
will not halt. So now what?

We add the mandatory required details to your simplistic idea such
that additional elaboration from this full set of details:
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.

Obviously.  So now what?

 
You still don't understand that we get the same effect whether we
replace the code or not.