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 ==========