Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 --- HHH(DDD)==0
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:57:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <ve1p1i$1s2mq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <db4ba1c99ee737853f685719877d3b295f887e91@i2pn2.org>
 <ve0j03$1n4d9$2@dont-email.me>
 <8f8f81ca09cc2a36481999e0408ff2e3ca780f39@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2024 00:57:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="369876f7fbf3669ecd1d4217493c4943";
	logging-data="1968858"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ainUj8FUu9EeJGEqiJbVC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8iw2DVSvMOpUyFkArZf+LFKrpHc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8f8f81ca09cc2a36481999e0408ff2e3ca780f39@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6904

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.
>>
> 
> And, for the PROGRAM DDD, must include the FULL decription  of the HHH 
> that it calls.
> 

It does and the source-code specifies that it does
yet this is simply over-your-head.

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

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