Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- HHH(DDD)==0 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 07:44:29 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 220 Message-ID: References: <2996169ade3affa1d5f573667dafb110aefe86e0@i2pn2.org> <01b14b98ee059ac2c3f5cdc56522d6719a1d2d7a@i2pn2.org> <8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org> <8f8f81ca09cc2a36481999e0408ff2e3ca780f39@i2pn2.org> <085a1c3ee93ae5388d60b4b195fdb7a0b1ae70ed@i2pn2.org> <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@i2pn2.org> <4ead3c7dcd0cb13a6c655716f106bb836aa4bc47@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2024 14:44:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="369876f7fbf3669ecd1d4217493c4943"; logging-data="2310439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BT5Fl7pmwrg1dm+bPtDX1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:pYZuEHK344wzwnfq6PHU78wEjU8= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <4ead3c7dcd0cb13a6c655716f106bb836aa4bc47@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 11168 On 10/8/2024 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/7/24 9:28 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/7/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/7/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/7/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/7/24 7:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/7/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/7/24 6:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/7/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/7/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/7/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/24 3:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2024 1:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/24 2:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2024 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2024 11:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist never returns. Each of these HHH emulators >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return 0 correctly reports the above non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the DDD return (if the HHH(DDD) gives an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer), just after the HHH that emulated them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist never returns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which, as you have been told but seems to be above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your head means that the execution of DDD, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets to ignore the fact that DDD was defined to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological relationship with HHH that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH cannot ignore. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that isn't ignoring it, but taking into account >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that since HHH is defined to be a specific program, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has specific behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the executed DDD after the emulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD has already been aborted is different than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the emulated DDD that must be aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is the exact same code on the exact same data, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus does the exact same behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace proves that the executed DDD has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different behavior that need not be aborted because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated DDD must be an is aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, whst instruction ACTUALLY EMULATE showed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different behavior than the executed DDD? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you do is look at a DIFFERENT INPUT which is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie, since that isn't the DDD that HHH was given (since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the PROGRAM DDD includes the all the exact code of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH that it calls, thus you can't change it to hypothosze >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a diffferent non- aborting HHH) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one can be stupid enough to think that: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST BE ABORTED >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    is exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NEED NOT BE ABORTED >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who said otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed DDD need not be aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH must be aborted, thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proving that their behavior IS NOT THE SAME. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the design of HHH does abort its emulation, because if >>>>>>>>>>>>> you had a DIFFERENT HHH, which would be given a DIFFERENT >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD (since DDD includes the HHH that it is calling) it >>>>>>>>>>>>> would fail worse at the task at the meta- level by not >>>>>>>>>>>>> answering. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That you are not addressing my points seems to be over your >>>>>>>>>>>> head. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, the fact that I *AM* adddressing your points and pointing >>>>>>>>>>> out your error just proves that you are nothing but a stupid >>>>>>>>>>> idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That you don't even try to point out an error in what I say, >>>>>>>>>>> proves that you don't actually care about what is right, but >>>>>>>>>>> that you just want to blindly hold on to your position. The >>>>>>>>>>> fact that you consistantly snip out much of the arguement >>>>>>>>>>> shows that you know you are defeated, but still insist on >>>>>>>>>>> your WRONG position. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Halting is a property of PROGRAMS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Terminating is a property of finite string machine descriptions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And, for the PROGRAM DDD, must include the FULL decription  of >>>>>>>>> the HHH that it calls. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It does and the source-code specifies that it does >>>>>>>> yet this is simply over-your-head. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that isn't the finite string you are claiming above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When you include the code of HHH in DDD, then when you hypotosize >>>>>>> HHH not aborting, that hypothetical HHH is still given the DDD >>>>>>> that calls the HHH that DOES, and your hypothetical HHH proves >>>>>>> that this HHH is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No it continues to be you fail to pay complete attention >>>>>> to every detail of every words that I said. >>>>>> >>>>>> *THE FOLLOWING REMAINS TRUE NO MATTER WHAT HHH DOES* >>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>>>>> exist never returns. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, because *DDD*, the one that was emulated by each of the HHH, ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========