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

On 3/9/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/9/2025 9:26 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/9/2025 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/9/2025 9:09 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/9/2025 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/9/2025 8:49 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Erasing and replacing my words with your words
is a real scumbag move.

>
Not when you gave your official approval to do so after admitting for the record that they mean the same thing:
>

>
(1) Replacing my quoted words with your words (as if I said
your words) is despicably dishonest.

>
Not when you gave your official approval to do so, as posted previously that you dishonestly trimmed.
>

>
(2) They do not mean that same thing you removed most
of the essence of my proof.
>

>
If they didn't mean the same thing you would have explained how.  I gave you multiple opportunities to do so and you refused.  You were warned that failing to explain would be taken as your admission that they were the same and you still didn't explain, therefore your admission that they are the same was entered into the record.
>
I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you an opportunity to explain the difference now.  If you choose not to take that up, your on-the- record admission stands.
>

>
*When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then*
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>
Whether or not the correct emulation of DD by HHH
is finite or infinite DD cannot possibly reach its
own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>

>
So again, no attempt to explain the difference.
>
So your admission that they are the same and permission to replace them in quotes stands.

 If you want to play head games you can play by yourself.
 

In other words, you can't handle that I force you to explain yourself, keep track of what you've admitted to in failing to do so, and remind you of that.
The alternative is that you can explain in detail why others are wrong instead of copy-pasting the same tired quotes over and over as a less-than-no-rebuttal.
Accepting the stipulated definition of a solution to the halting problem would also help.