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

On 3/8/2025 11:40 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

 You cannot possibly correctly understand the answer to
that issue until after you understand the above mandatory
prerequisite.
 

It's not an issue.  It is stipulated that a solution to the halting problem perform the following mapping:
(<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 directly