Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 --- My Stupid Mistake
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 18:36:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e3c5e889f08864f05329e5536380e974ed6faefe@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me>
 <7c6cede5237e3eafee262c74dd1a1c90c6b2ffbb@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 22:36:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="881511"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vdun2l$1b4or$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5639
Lines: 114

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 DDD that HHH is given does not need to be aborted, becuase HHH DOES 
Abort it because that is what its code says to do.

Since we can give that exact code (including that HHH) to HHH1 which 
doesn't abort it, we see that HHH didn't NEED to abort it, but does.

You just don't understand what a program is, or more properly, you 
refuse to understand what a program is because it would show the flaw in 
your proof.


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.