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 --- different
 execution traces have different behavior !!!
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 18:36:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fb9157fd836fec6db63d533726eaf99890eac2e6@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>
 <vdump0$1b4or$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 22:36:18 -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: <vdump0$1b4or$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5387
Lines: 105

On 10/6/24 3:00 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.

Really? What instruction actually emulated had a different result than 
when it was executed.


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
> NEED NOT BE ABORTED is exactly the same as NEED NOT BE ABORTED
> 

No, but the fact that it DOES abort it simulation means its simulation 
doesn't show the actual behavior of the input, and means that an actual 
correct simulation will halt.

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.