Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- HHH(DDD)==0
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:21:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <030f6c2bf84dc1776787d597adcf5c2015cc861d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdug46$1a56s$2@dont-email.me>
 <2996169ade3affa1d5f573667dafb110aefe86e0@i2pn2.org>
 <vdujcl$1aj6l$1@dont-email.me>
 <01b14b98ee059ac2c3f5cdc56522d6719a1d2d7a@i2pn2.org>
 <vdul3v$1asin$1@dont-email.me>
 <f283a1c15b928ef2c641e60cc5fd7813bef37a0a@i2pn2.org>
 <vdun2l$1b4or$2@dont-email.me>
 <e3c5e889f08864f05329e5536380e974ed6faefe@i2pn2.org>
 <vdv8jg$1dnja$1@dont-email.me>
 <8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org>
 <vdvfki$1e78r$1@dont-email.me>
 <db4ba1c99ee737853f685719877d3b295f887e91@i2pn2.org>
 <ve0j03$1n4d9$2@dont-email.me>
 <8f8f81ca09cc2a36481999e0408ff2e3ca780f39@i2pn2.org>
 <ve1p1i$1s2mq$1@dont-email.me>
 <085a1c3ee93ae5388d60b4b195fdb7a0b1ae70ed@i2pn2.org>
 <ve1r9p$1t0bn$1@dont-email.me>
 <ade7b09486ca9de753a35f88aa4540c0233df3dd@i2pn2.org>
 <ve2038$1tdjm$1@dont-email.me>
 <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@i2pn2.org>
 <ve21rv$1tm6t$1@dont-email.me>
 <4ead3c7dcd0cb13a6c655716f106bb836aa4bc47@i2pn2.org>
 <ve39fd$26g97$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 13:21:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1112213"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ve39fd$26g97$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 13144
Lines: 278

On 10/8/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========