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

Am Tue, 04 Mar 2025 23:26:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/4/2025 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/4/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/3/25 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:

And the HHH that correctly emulated DD, can't be a decider and
answer.
Also. "the HHH", defined in your Halt7.c doesn't do that,

The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of exactly how
DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its own "ret" instruction.
Failing to provide the above proves that you are clueless about
this code.

Nope, I have shown why your logic is wrong,

If that was true you could show this with something besides rhetoric
and double-talk.

That you call all I say as just rhetoric just shows how stupid you
are.

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally. AND YOU CAN'T SHOW OTHERWISE

Right, but the HHH that does that doesn't answer,

The code proves that it does answer yet code is over your head. All you
have is rhetoric anchored ignorance.

No, the simulated HHH is aborted.

and there is only one HHH in existance at a time in the given memory
locations, so you claim is worthless and based on lies.

If you were not clueless you would know that the code proves that you
are wrong.

No. Simulation does not mean the code runs on the processor. Otherwise
we wouldn't need simulators to run foreign code.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.