Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

Op 28.feb.2025 om 00:18 schreef olcott:

On 2/27/2025 1:20 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.feb.2025 om 20:06 schreef olcott:

On 2/27/2025 3:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:40 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 9:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:49:42 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 3:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.feb.2025 om 05:50 schreef olcott:

On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

You already know that you are stupidly wrong about the emulation being
incorrect or you would have provided the correct emulation sequence
long ago.

>

What are the first 15 lines of DD correctly emulated by HHH?

The error in the simulation occurs already at the 5th instruction, the
'call 000015c3'. Instead of simulating this instruction,

What are the correct first 15 lines of DD emulated by HHH.

>

There can be no correct continuation.
>

>
I say what the correct simulation is.
You say that I am wrong.
>
If I am wrong then a correct simulation must exist.

>
HHH1 did a correct simulation, so, there it is.
>

>
That dishonestly dodged the original question:
What are the first 15 *lines of DD* correctly emulated by HHH?

That ignores again the answer to the question.

 Anything besides a sequence of 15 machine addresses is a WRONG ANSWER
You know this and DISHONESTY DODGE.
 

Olcott knows that HHH1 produces those 15 machine addresses, but he does not want to know it, because it would disclose his failure. Is that why he carefully removes the references to HHH1 from his citations?