Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 --- HHH(DDD)==0
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 20:28:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <ve21rv$1tm6t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$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>
 <ve1p1i$1s2mq$1@dont-email.me>
 <085a1c3ee93ae5388d60b4b195fdb7a0b1ae70ed@i2pn2.org>
 <ve1r9p$1t0bn$1@dont-email.me>
 <ade7b09486ca9de753a35f88aa4540c0233df3dd@i2pn2.org>
 <ve2038$1tdjm$1@dont-email.me>
 <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@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 03:28:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="369876f7fbf3669ecd1d4217493c4943";
	logging-data="2021597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wZFl/kfpTAtOyCfOhRkzh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VT4puvUY3yFwi/tUBQNXNdmvfy0=
In-Reply-To: <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9966

On 10/7/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/7/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/7/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/7/24 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/7/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/7/24 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But that isn't the finite string you are claiming above.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you include the code of HHH in DDD, then when you hypotosize 
>>>>> HHH not aborting, that hypothetical HHH is still given the DDD that 
>>>>> calls the HHH that DOES, and your hypothetical HHH proves that this 
>>>>> HHH is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it continues to be you fail to pay complete attention
>>>> to every detail of every words that I said.
>>>>
>>>> *THE FOLLOWING REMAINS TRUE NO MATTER WHAT HHH DOES*
>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>>> exist never returns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, because *DDD*, the one that was emulated by each of the HHH, will 
>>> HALT if that HHH(DDD) returns 0, just after its HHH aborted its 
>>> emulaiton.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========