Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:06:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4930ca0f7d57a40bb2df42c645157863d8670407@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
	<920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
	<vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
	<4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
	<vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
	<vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@dont-email.me>
	<vqb6qr$2mueq$3@dont-email.me>
	<27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org>
	<vqcvu3$34c3r$5@dont-email.me>
	<24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org>
	<vqdlqp$371bi$6@dont-email.me>
	<bb66fe73f9d7a84cdc35912f0fb01b3896583963@i2pn2.org>
	<vqf3b6$3j68u$8@dont-email.me> <vqh1d1$2msm$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqhkmd$5r7r$6@dont-email.me>
	<4dc770ab18f1a991f8797cbb97199126d7f9795c@i2pn2.org>
	<vqikuc$bcso$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:06:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3558681"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3653
Lines: 41

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.