Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/30/25 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/30/2025 4:14 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 30/05/2025 10:03, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-29 16:42:09 +0000, olcott said:

>
<snip>
>

We must achieve 100% complete closure on each point
one-at-a-time and not endlessly flit back and forth
across many different points never achieving closure
on any of them.

>
You are not and never have been asked to endlessly flit back
and forth. But you are doing it anyway. You have been adviced
how to to something more useful but you have never done.

>
>
Quite so. At some point, one must draw a veil across the nonsense. I think I've reached that point. I do not plan to reply to any more of Mr Olcott's articles. (Road to hell and that, but that's the plan.)
>

 When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH the first four
instructions of DDD are emulated. When HHH(DDD) is
called from DDD then HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.

But how? since that code isn't in the input?

 No matter how many times HHH emulates itself emulating
DDD the emulated DDD cannot possibly reach its "ret"
instruction final halt state. This proves that DDD emulated
by HHH is non-halting.
 

But WHICH of those is *THE* HHH?
Which one is the one that DDD was built on?
It seems you don't understand what a program is.
Programs have definite behavior and all the code they use.
Anything else is just a category error.
You are just proving that you "logic" is built on lies and category errors.