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

Am Sat, 08 Mar 2025 17:47:24 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/8/2025 5:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/8/25 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-07 15:28:38 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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:

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in
recursive emulation.

No,

You could show the machine-address by machine-address correct
execution trace if i was wrong. You only dodge this because you k ow
that I am correct.

One cannot show the correct trace of an incorrect program.

Using ad hominem instead of reasoning makes you look very foolish.

No ad hominem above.

hehe

Persistently falling go show the line-by-line execution trace of the
correct emulation that would prove that the emulation by HHH is
incorrect
BECAUSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE BY HHH IS CORRECT!!!
>

The line-by-line emulation of the equivalemt program has been posted,
and was even posted by you.
 

HHH(DD) is not equivalent to HHH1(DD) and you know that you are lying
about this because you know that with HHH(DD) DD calls its own emulator
in recursive emulation and with HHH1(DD) DD DOES NOT CALL HHH1.

Exactly, and HHH is really not simulating itself but rather DD's call to
HHH1, changing DD's behaviour.

--
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.