Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined

On 3/21/2025 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/20/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/20/25 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/20/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-20 02:32:43 +0000, olcott said:
>

DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language then these
N steps are emulated correctly.

>
That does not make much sense to define the correct emulation of DDD as
it should mean whatever "correct emulation" means when applied to DDD.
>
Althouth promised otherwise on the subject line the meaning of "DDD
correctly emulated by HHH" when N is not specified is not defined.
>

>
N in this context always means any element of the
set of natural numbers.

>
Then HHH isn't a specific program, and you are admitting that you "logic" is just based on FRAUD.
>

>
We have been over this same thing too many times.

 Right, and you still don't understand that you are required to follow the definitions of the system to be in the system.
 You have ADMITTED that you aren't following the rules of the system, and thus every time you imply that you are, you have admitted you are lying.
 Thus, every time you claim to be "solving" the Halting Problem, you have admitted you are just lying about that.
 

>

>
1,2,3...4,294,967,296 steps of DDD are correctly emulated
by HHH and DDD never reaches its "ret" instruction and
terminates normally.

>
DIFFERENT HHHs and thus DIFFERENT DDDs were emulated.
>

>
The point remains the same without the additional details.
For every HHH at machine address 000015d2 when the above
listed machine code is emulated for any finite number of
steps according to the semantics of the x86 language the
above finite string of machine code never reaches its own
"ret" instruction and halts.

 In other words, you claim it is ok to lie about the system you are working on.
 

Those words are defamation of character that meets the
required standard of reckless disregard of the truth
of the semantics of the x86 language.
https://dictionary.justia.com/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer