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

On 3/9/2025 9:28 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/9/2025 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/9/2025 9:11 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/9/2025 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/9/2025 8:50 AM, dbush wrote:

When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then
*DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
*its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
*because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation*
I am not going to address any other point until this point is fully
understood because the other points cannot possibly be understood
until this one is totally understood.
Whether or not and how it applies to the Halting Theorem cannot
possibly be understood at all until after the above words are 100%
totally and perfectly understood.
>

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

>
If you went to play head games you can play by yourself.

In other words, you're disagreeing with a stipulative definition.
As you yourself said:
 

You cannot possibly understand anything that I say about that until you
after you first understand this:
[spam]