Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 16:10:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 280
Message-ID: <ve473a$2afp6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <ve405a$29pn2$1@dont-email.me>
 <a8e26927fd1751a23d0e4fc4e68a912628bd63da@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 23:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="369876f7fbf3669ecd1d4217493c4943";
	logging-data="2440998"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+05bj/WgsXU8/HXbH+zziE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3QRgLPxWi5ptB/WobyqahP93w0g=
In-Reply-To: <a8e26927fd1751a23d0e4fc4e68a912628bd63da@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 14639

On 10/8/2024 3:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/8/24 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========