Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<ve405a$29pn2$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!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 14:11:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 250
Message-ID: <ve405a$29pn2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <ve39fd$26g97$1@dont-email.me>
 <030f6c2bf84dc1776787d597adcf5c2015cc861d@i2pn2.org>
 <ve3e3r$26g97$4@dont-email.me>
 <8c474bc7aee03e8eedb712f48c4b39c1c9e88a7b@i2pn2.org>
 <ve3gb8$27ad7$1@dont-email.me>
 <243d02f2d3397e7f681ebdad2e9b7d8a346bb75c@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 21:11:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="369876f7fbf3669ecd1d4217493c4943";
	logging-data="2418402"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zwm2dUT3V94cClWteuZkE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ES7hXE2SJUP1EJjpT3yIw/WpGFU=
In-Reply-To: <243d02f2d3397e7f681ebdad2e9b7d8a346bb75c@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 13160

On 10/8/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/8/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/8/24 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2024 8:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/8/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========