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 18:39:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8f8f81ca09cc2a36481999e0408ff2e3ca780f39@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org>
 <vdvfki$1e78r$1@dont-email.me>
 <db4ba1c99ee737853f685719877d3b295f887e91@i2pn2.org>
 <ve0j03$1n4d9$2@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 22:39:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1026820"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ve0j03$1n4d9$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8417
Lines: 184

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.

Thus, if that is all of the input, you are just proving that you have 
been lying about working on the Halting problem, as your input ISN'T a 
sufficient representation of the input.

Thus, your are whole problem is on a false basis.

> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
> finite string such that
> 
> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
> exist never returns.

No, the Emulation of DDD by each corresponding HHH doesn't reach a final 
state, but the actual program DDD will return if the HHH it calls aborts 
it simulation are returns 0.

You are just showing that AGAIN, you don't understand the meaning of the 
words you are using.


> 
> Thus each of these HHH emulators that does return 0 correctly
> reports the above non-terminating behavior.
> 
> 

Nope, because by doing so it proves itself wrong, and that you are 
nothing but a LIAR.

And, you accept that designation, by not even attempting to refute the 
arguements present, but just repeat your REFUTED claims, proving you 
have less evidence of your innocence then Donald Trump.

 >
 > *Fully operational software*
 > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm *x86utm operating system*
 >

In other words, you are just proving that


PPPP   EEEEE  TTTTT  EEEEE  RRRR
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========