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: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 21:11:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdrafr$oita$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdtp6o$1710i$1@dont-email.me> <vdu0en$17ult$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5bff7b74eac8c4382c49942fbecd95d0fb66c43@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 01:11:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1039132"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <ve2038$1tdjm$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10883
Lines: 225

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, will 
>> HALT if that HHH(DDD) returns 0, just after its HHH aborted its 
>> emulaiton.
>>
> 
> PLEASE PLAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THESE EXACT WORDS
> 
> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH
> that can possibly exist never returns.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========