Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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 13:51:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <243d02f2d3397e7f681ebdad2e9b7d8a346bb75c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <030f6c2bf84dc1776787d597adcf5c2015cc861d@i2pn2.org>
 <ve3e3r$26g97$4@dont-email.me>
 <8c474bc7aee03e8eedb712f48c4b39c1c9e88a7b@i2pn2.org>
 <ve3gb8$27ad7$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 17:51:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1142168"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <ve3gb8$27ad7$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 15356
Lines: 309

On 10/8/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/8/24 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2024 8:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========