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 21:33:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 384
Message-ID: <ve4q2o$2ckv6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <ve473a$2afp6$1@dont-email.me>
 <37c291e02299479ab8b55256f3744fe0ba48f6db@i2pn2.org>
 <ve4e64$2bp17$1@dont-email.me>
 <1a3716fc1a1d62f9f44396ca12f8a9e129864573.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2024 04:34:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="226061eba1b9449e8d60367b08997690";
	logging-data="2511846"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Wq6yQR4wGnTTCfc/3lcsO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fb1I8au3gb4auRbIRtYtL4gkXxE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1a3716fc1a1d62f9f44396ca12f8a9e129864573.camel@gmail.com>
Bytes: 19409

On 10/8/2024 6:23 PM, wij wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 18:10 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/8/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/8/24 5:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========