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

On 3/7/25 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2025 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott:

On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott:

On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott:

On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:

>
In other words, you know that what you're working on has nothing to do with the halting problem, but you don't care.

>
In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO QUIT THE SHIT!
>

>
You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report that changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator and running HHH(DD) will not halt.
>

>
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

>
Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction,

>
Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception.
>

>
No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction.

>
Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject
WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
>

If you do not agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction (that world-class simulators do reach, just as the direct execution does), show how it reaches the 'ret' instruction.

 *set X*
When-so-ever any input to any simulating termination
analyzer calls the simulator that is simulating itself
 *result of set X*
this input cannot possibly reach its own final state
and terminate normally because it remains stuck in
recursive emulation.

But the failure of the PARTIAL emulatipon done by the termination analyzer doesn't show that the input is non-haltiong

 *Ridiculously stupid dishonest fake rebuttal*
 That members of different sets having different behavior
proves that inputs calling their own simulator must have
this same behavior.
 

But those sets have nothing to do with the halting question.
This is just part of your ADMITTED FRAUD based on using the WRONG DEFINITION of the core concepts.
For instance, neither you HHH or your DD meet the definions of a Compuation / Program for computation theory, so you whole arguement is just based on LIES.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving you are either too stupid to understand your stupid errors, or just so blantantly dishonest you don't care about the truth.
That is what you have burned into the name "Peter Olcott" for eterninty.