Re: Failure to meet this challenge proves that all of my reviewers are wrong

On 3/2/2025 10:22 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 09:51:56 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/2/2025 8:55 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 08:42:03 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>

I challenged everyone here to provide the machine address by machine
address (AKA line by line) execution trace of DD correctly emulated by
HHH that reaches its own "ret" instruction.
No one made any attempt to do this because they know that this would
prove that they are stupidly wrong to say that my trace is incorrect.

I did, on thursday at 9pm UTC.
>

I am asking for a sequence of 10 hexadecimal integer machine addresses
of DD correctly emulated by HHH.

See that post.
 

Do you not know what a hexadecimal integer machine address is?
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
  non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 21:00:06 -0000 (UTC)
On 2/27/2025 3:00 PM, joes wrote:
 > Anyway: ignoring the call to HHH, because it doesn't call DD in turn,
Is counterfactual The actual HHH does emulate itself emulating DD
as a 100% totally verified fact.
That you cannot understand that this code proves that is not my mistake.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 > we continue with 2141 until the conditional jump, whereupon we
 > either enter an infinite loop (which is more than 15 instructions)
 > or proceed to return (which is 13 instructions), depending on the
 > return value of HHH.
 >
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer