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

On 3/10/25 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/10/2025 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-09 13:16:20 +0000, olcott said:>>

When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then

>
HHH does not present that assumption, which is therefore irrelevant
to the fact that https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
does not prove anything.
>

 typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
 DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "retrun" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.

But only if HHH actually does the complete emulation.
If HHH aborts and returns, as you otherwhere describe it, then it doesn't do a correct emulation, so your statement is null as that isn't the behavior of *THE* HHH in the system but a correct emulation of that input by an actually correct emulator would.

 If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent
programmer sees then HHH does not need to emulate DD
more than twice to know that HHH cannot possibly reach
its own final state and terminate normally.
 

But only by lying to itself about what it is itself.

Perhaps you are not a competent programmer.
 

The problem is you are not an honest logitian, as you think you are make argiuments with lying premises.
You have admitted to the use of FRAUD in your logic, and now you show you include unsound logic based on lies.