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

On 3/9/2025 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/9/2025 8:49 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:

>
Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no real rebuttal for what others have said.
>

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>
  <copy-paste response>
>

>
>
In other words, you have no rebuttal.

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>
*UNTIL YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND*
*THE NEXT STEP THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES*
>
<copy-paste response>
>
>

>
Doesn't matter, as you've already accepted that your HHH isn't a solution to the halting problem

>
*I never said that*

>
Yes you did, by making no attempt to explain otherwise:
>

>
*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>

>
>
In other words, HHH fails to meet the requirement to be classified as a solution to the halting problem, as you have already admitted.
>

>
Erasing and replacing my words with your words
is a real scumbag move.

>
Not when you gave your official approval to do so after admitting for the record that they mean the same thing:
>

 (1) Replacing my quoted words with your words (as if I said
your words) is despicably dishonest.

Not when you gave your official approval to do so, as posted previously that you dishonestly trimmed.

 (2) They do not mean that same thing you removed most
of the essence of my proof.
 

If they didn't mean the same thing you would have explained how.  I gave you multiple opportunities to do so and you refused.  You were warned that failing to explain would be taken as your admission that they were the same and you still didn't explain, therefore your admission that they are the same was entered into the record.
I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you an opportunity to explain the difference now.  If you choose not to take that up, your on-the-record admission stands.