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

On 3/6/25 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:

>
In other words, you know that what you're working on has nothing to
do with the halting problem, but you don't care.

>
In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO QUIT THE
SHIT!

You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report that
changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator and running
HHH(DD) will not halt.
>

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally.

>
In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional
simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not halt, which you
previously agreed is correct:
On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
  > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
  >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
  >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
  >>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
  >>
  >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an
  >> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is
  >> non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
  >>
  > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.
>
If you disagree, explain why this is different.
In particular, give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is
different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional simulator
and subsequently running Y(X).

>
I may not have enough time left to change the subject and endlessly go
through anything but the exact point.

>

You used to have enough time.
>

>
That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed twice.

>
Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods

 _DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
 DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
 

No, and your problem is still that you are trying to hold to you admitted FRAUD.
The DD above is NOT a "Program" as it is not complete.
Thus, the DD above can NOT be "correctly emulated" by HHH, and thus your arguement is based on a false premise.
The fact that no HHH can correctly emulated the template DD based on itself doesn't say anything about the instance of DD you are trying to talk about, the template DD based on the HHH that gives the right answer, which aborts its emulation, and thus doesn't do aa "correct" emulation.
You never have answered any of these points, just showing that either you are so stupid you don't understand them, or you know you are just a fraud and are just ignorning them.
It seems you are just deciding to waste your final days continuing to assert proven erroreus statements to solidify the conclusion that you are just an idiot.