Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!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: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 07:44:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <ve39fd$26g97$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <ve21rv$1tm6t$1@dont-email.me>
 <4ead3c7dcd0cb13a6c655716f106bb836aa4bc47@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 14:44:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="369876f7fbf3669ecd1d4217493c4943";
	logging-data="2310439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BT5Fl7pmwrg1dm+bPtDX1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pYZuEHK344wzwnfq6PHU78wEjU8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <4ead3c7dcd0cb13a6c655716f106bb836aa4bc47@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 11168

On 10/8/2024 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/7/24 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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, 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========