Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- My Stupid Mistake
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 19:05:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vdv8jg$1dnja$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <e3c5e889f08864f05329e5536380e974ed6faefe@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 02:05:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b7a476f4f1bd10a7e0a71ff615734438";
	logging-data="1498730"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18j1E4CZmFn1HWkPo6nCf/b"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N+WRm6HD1WLgAday/4zbjyRxicI=
In-Reply-To: <e3c5e889f08864f05329e5536380e974ed6faefe@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4891

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.



-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer