Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure

On 6/28/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/27/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/27/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
That seems to be one of your biggest lies, you claim others are lying to try to disquise your own lies.
>
You can't show one thing that I have said that is FACTUALY INCORRCT (only that you disagre with them).
>
I have shown statements of your that ARE DEFINITIONALLY INCORRECT (even if you want to use a different definition, which just isn't allowed, and thus becomes a lie).

>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly
emulated by x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
>
>

 You are still using sloppy definition to spread your deceit.
>

The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly
return.
The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant
because that is not the behavior of the input. Deciders
compute the mapping from their actual finite string input
to an output by a sequence of finite string transformations.
In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution
trace of the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by H0.
The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore
the recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is
calling its own emulator. That people think they can just
pretend that this is not happening is ridiculous.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer