Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined

On 3/21/25 9:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-21 01:48:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/20/25 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/20/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-20 02:32:43 +0000, olcott said:
>

DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language then these
N steps are emulated correctly.

>
That does not make much sense to define the correct emulation of DDD as
it should mean whatever "correct emulation" means when applied to DDD.
>
Althouth promised otherwise on the subject line the meaning of "DDD
correctly emulated by HHH" when N is not specified is not defined.
>

>
N in this context always means any element of the
set of natural numbers.

>
Then HHH isn't a specific program, and you are admitting that you "logic" is just based on FRAUD.
>

>
We have been over this same thing too many times.

>
You are right. But you can't figure out how to avoid that.
>

 I explained that in the part you ignored.
When I fully answer a question endlessly
repeating the same question after it has been
fully answered is not acceptable.
 

Inb other words, you admit to your lies, but then try to claim that they are not lies, just 'alternate truths' which is just another name for a lie.
Your problem is that you have ADMITTED that you "logic" isn't based on real logic or the definitions of the systems you are talking about, and thus everything you have said is just a FRAUD.