Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty

Op 23.feb.2025 om 18:47 schreef olcott:

On 2/23/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:45:06 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:

>

I have given everyone here all of the complete source code for a
few years

True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that
particular code.

Every post that I have been talking about for two or more years
has referred to variations of that same code.

Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting
something new and fresh.

As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge my key
points I will be done.

Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other.
>

Let's start with a root point.
All of the other points validate this root point.
*Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
*the non-halt status of DD*

Since DD halts, that's dead in the water.

Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man deception
aside:
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally by
reaching its own "return" instruction.

Only because that statement is based on a false premise.
Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement is just
a fabrication of your imagination.

>
*Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified* It
cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that the machine
code specifies. That most people here are clueless about x86 machine
code is far less than no rebuttal at all.

It's not about the machine code. The machine code of HHH specifies a
sequence where simulation is aborted, but you simulate the non-input
of a non-aborting HHH. This is not the HHH that does the simulation.
>

When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot possibly return
to the emulator, conclusively proving that

That's bad. A decider like HHH is supposed to return.
>

 When a decider itself is called in an infinite loop
then it cannot possibly terminate unless a version
of itself its emulating this instance of itself.

Olcott is dreaming of an infinite loop again. There is no infinite loop. The direct execution of the program halts, proving that there is no infinite loop, no infinite recursion and no infinite recursive simulation. The problem with Olcott's simulator is that as soon as it sees one recursion, it thinks that it is an infinite recursion.
That is incorrect. This error makes the program a halting program. Correcting this error will not help, because Olcott is trying to do the logically impossible. Just as every attempt to draw a square circle will have an error and fixing that error only introduces another error. Similarly every attempt to make HHH correctly simulate itself will always have an error, because it is not logically possible for HHH to correctly simulate itself.