| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<db4ba1c99ee737853f685719877d3b295f887e91@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.neodome.net!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: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 07:02:58 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <db4ba1c99ee737853f685719877d3b295f887e91@i2pn2.org> References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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> <8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org> <vdvfki$1e78r$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 11:02:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="952133"; 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: <vdvfki$1e78r$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 7177 Lines: 146 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. Programs include ALL the code they use. Thus, the input program DDD includes the specific version of HHH that it cals. Changing the code of that HHH (to not abort) means it is a different program, and thus we have a different DDD being talked about. Thus, your arguement is based on a LIE, that HHH needs to abort THIS DDD because if a different program didn't abort its emulation of a different input, it would not halt. Note, trying to change deffinitions is just one form of lying. 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.