Re: Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) --- REFUTES INCORRECT REQUIREMENTS

On 5/9/25 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then this correctly simulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own “return statement”.
(final halt state)
 

But that input can not be correctly emulated, as it doesn't contain the code for HHH.
Sorru, you are just proving your stupidity.
Which FACT are you disagreeing with?
1) You stipuatle that the input is exact the code of the "C function" DDD, and nothing else.
2) That you stipulate that the function HHH needs to be a pure function, and thus only a function of its specific input, and not get information from other sources.
3) That you stipulate that the emulation is to be according to the x86 language.
If you remove your stipu;ation 1, and the input contains the code of the HHH that DDD calls, then every DDD / HHH pairing given as the input to something is a different input, and thus the DDD/HHH pair given to your decider HHH that returns 0 is a different input than the DDD/HHH pair given to your hypothetical HHH that does the corrert emulation.
If you remove your stipulation 2, then there exist an HHH that uses a static variable to make the call to HHH(DD) from within DD when emulated by HHH to just immediately return 0 (as the actual full behavior of HHH is) and thus your claim is just refute by showing that it is possible.
And if you remove your stipulation 3, you need to explain what you actualy mean by a "correct emulation" as something that is actually compatible with what you are claiming.
Of course, if all these stipulation are in place, the NO HHH can correct emulate the input past the call HHH instruction, as the code that must be emulated is not available to the emulator,
You failure to answer this question the many times it has been posted is taken a proof that you KNOW you are just a stupid liar, and know you can't justify your argument, but just keep on repeating it as you think lying about things is just proper logic.