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 21:50:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c5fc13c930680ba5f64f34e9a1c918c8c40e3530@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <243d02f2d3397e7f681ebdad2e9b7d8a346bb75c@i2pn2.org>
 <ve405a$29pn2$1@dont-email.me>
 <a8e26927fd1751a23d0e4fc4e68a912628bd63da@i2pn2.org>
 <ve473a$2afp6$1@dont-email.me>
 <37c291e02299479ab8b55256f3744fe0ba48f6db@i2pn2.org>
 <ve4e64$2bp17$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 01:50:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1189120"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <ve4e64$2bp17$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 20270
Lines: 419

On 10/8/24 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/8/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/8/24 5:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2024 3:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/24 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/8/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========