Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply

Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:11:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/22/2024 4:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott:

On 6/21/2024 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:

On 6/20/2024 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott:

The question which instruction is incorrectly simulated already shows
your error. The error is not that an instruction is simulated
incorrectly, but that some instruction are not simulated at all.
Why is that already over your head?

It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
this call DOES NOT RETURN.

Why are you changing the topic here?

It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
this call DOES RETURN.

DDD by itself always specifies the same behaviour. A better phrasing would
be that the different H's execute it differently; so at least one of them
must be wrong.

I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.

They are not true, let alone proven.

--
Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik
sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim