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 --- different
 execution traces have different behavior !!!
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 07:13:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <783e213959805fd001d6e58b379330e6be0d2e04@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdjlum$38t86$4@dont-email.me>
 <bf681f4404a7df8e3ffc2059dcd7c5c302aeeff1@i2pn2.org>
 <vdkud3$3ipp4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8b646269ba7736c125f0b05a1d764d73540f16e0@i2pn2.org>
 <vdn6sj$3thq0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1263d37668d0fd03df0ab5f9617387ca66ba4f0e@i2pn2.org>
 <vdnl13$3089$1@dont-email.me>
 <5f8d06fc4934a789b337fe9924553e34f9a45586@i2pn2.org>
 <vdp7q7$8eot$3@dont-email.me>
 <ab89296446c0b7827f304f138347765967baf478@i2pn2.org>
 <vdq66f$jf7k$1@dont-email.me>
 <316810021a1addeb9ee56d7ee33f3d2f6cf6624d@i2pn2.org>
 <vdrb0g$oita$2@dont-email.me>
 <37e4a5967ff2e6b55cfdab86589287346e7f3068@i2pn2.org>
 <vdrf9g$p6ih$1@dont-email.me>
 <58a96f19f9bba519e879f8f0847866bd0340f8b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vdrfpa$p6ih$2@dont-email.me>
 <a09854f996cf58ab0e11bcf8608d2d2bc980b65d@i2pn2.org>
 <vdsuc4$13cch$1@dont-email.me>
 <283b9f2c331c81b03e5cff7848836aa741e1702e@i2pn2.org>
 <vdt0qb$13k0s$1@dont-email.me>
 <a1061ccf1aadfb368f0a257e914a6ebc883cad31@i2pn2.org>
 <vdt1l6$13moo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 11:13:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="810373"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vdt1l6$13moo$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6686
Lines: 133

On 10/5/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/5/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/5/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2024 10:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/5/2024 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/5/24 9:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/5/2024 8:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/5/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/5/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/5/24 8:21 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/5/2024 5:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/4/24 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you are unable to understand that it is easily conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>> proven (below) that the emulated HHH does emulate its DDD 
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> is why your double-talk gibberish rebuttal fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, the trace actually proves the opposite.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following execution trace conclusively proves that
>>>>>>>>> HHH emulated by itself does emulate the first four lines
>>>>>>>>> of DDD correctly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, and then makes the error of PRESUMEING INCORREDTLY that 
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) will not return,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That this is over-your-head really is not my mistake.
>>>>>>> *DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly return*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is beyond YOUR head that the fact that HHH does abort its 
>>>>>> emulation means its doesn't show if the HHH that it was emulating 
>>>>>> will return on not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply over your head.
>>>>> The infinite set of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>> never returns no matter what its corresponding HHH does.
>>>>
>>>> No, that is just a false statement based on you changing the meaning 
>>>> of the words.
>>>>
>>>> EVERY DDD that calls an HHH(DDD) that ever returns an answer will halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No DDD emulated by any corresponding HHH ever returns
>>> and the HHH that emulates it does return an answer
>>> corresponding to this behavior of this emulated DDD.
>>>
>>
>> That is a lie based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of the words.
>>
> 
> *No DDD emulated by any corresponding HHH ever returns*
> Until you understand this point you remain clueless.
> 
> 

Which is just a LIE as I explained.

If HHH(DDD) returns 0, as your claimed correct one does, then DDD will 
return and that answer is wrong.

Here is a leason on English Grammer

In the sentence "No DDD emulated by any corresponding HHH ever returns",

The SUBJECT of the Sentence is DDD, which tells us what we are talking 
about. Note, the program "DDD" refers to the program itself, and not a 
specific execution context of it.

The VERB of the Sentence is returns, which is the action we are talking 
about.

The phrase emultate by any corresponding HHH is a modifier to DDD to 
specifiy WHICH DDD we are talking about, which says we are only talking 
about the same DDD that is given as the parameter to HHH and not some 
other one.

In particular, it does NOT modify the behavior we are asking about, 
which is "Does DDD return".

Since it is the DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that we are talking about, it is 
clear that if that HHH(DDD) returns 0, as you claim it is doing 
correctly, then said HHH will return to DDD when it calls it, and thus 
DDD will halt.

What it appears you mean to say is that

No Emulation of DDD by its correspoinding HHH ever returns

WHich makes the Emulation the subject, so we are talking about that 
execution context of DDD and not the base behavior of DDD.

Of course, you don't state it that way, because that makes obvious your 
lie that HHH isn't being a Halt Decider since hald deciders decide on 
the OBJECTIVE criteria of the behavior of the program, and not the 
subjective criteria of their own, potentially partial, emulation of that 
machine.

So, you are just showing that:

PPPP   EEEEE  TTTTT  EEEEE  RRRR
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
PPPP   EEEEE    T    EEEEE  RRRR
P      E        T    E      R R
P      E        T    E      R  R
P      EEEEE    T    EEEEE  R   R


  OOO   L       CCC    OOO   TTTTT  TTTTT
O   O  L      C   C  O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C   C  O   O    T      T
  OOO   LLLLL   CCC    OOO     T      T


L     IIIII  EEEEE   SSS
L       I    E      S   S
L       I    E      S
L       I    EEEEE   SSS
L       I    E          S
L       I    E      S   S
LLLLL IIIII  EEEEE   SSS


AND THINKS THAT IS JUST OK.