Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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 --- My Stupid Mistake
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 21:29:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdhblt$2qm1j$2@dont-email.me>
 <cafee8d7a14edd7b1d76bb706c36eef06ae82896@i2pn2.org>
 <vdi0f8$2u1aq$1@dont-email.me>
 <53a60609211a04a123adafa525bac39b5cbc6959@i2pn2.org>
 <vdjlum$38t86$4@dont-email.me>
 <bf681f4404a7df8e3ffc2059dcd7c5c302aeeff1@i2pn2.org>
 <vdkud3$3ipp4$1@dont-email.me> <vdm1tl$3npme$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdn0nv$3sa9k$1@dont-email.me> <vdob4p$5sfp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdovie$8eot$1@dont-email.me> <vdqsrj$mmcu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdrafr$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 01:29:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="896764"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vdv8jg$1dnja$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6699
Lines: 133

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.

Once you define that *THIS* version of HHH *WILL* abort its emulation of 
DDD, then it turns out that it didn't need to, as shown by the complete 
emulation done by HHH1.

So, your UTTER STUPIDITY is revealed by the fact that you think it is ok 
to look at a different input then the one actually given, or perhaps you 
just don't understand what a program actually is because you have CHOSEN 
to be ignorant.

Either way, you have been shown the truth, but reject it, thus making 
your statements just blantant pathological lies.

Your arguement is based on comparing apples to oranges (The DDD calling 
the HHH that abort, which is the actual DDD in the system, and the DDD 
that calls some other thing desceptively also called HHH that doesn't, 
which is what this HHH acts like DDD is calling), and that has been 
shown to you, but you ignore it.

In other words, you are just proving 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.