Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- HHH(DDD)==0 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 21:11:17 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@i2pn2.org> References: <2996169ade3affa1d5f573667dafb110aefe86e0@i2pn2.org> <01b14b98ee059ac2c3f5cdc56522d6719a1d2d7a@i2pn2.org> <8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org> <8f8f81ca09cc2a36481999e0408ff2e3ca780f39@i2pn2.org> <085a1c3ee93ae5388d60b4b195fdb7a0b1ae70ed@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 01:11:17 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1039132"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10883 Lines: 225 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, will >> HALT if that HHH(DDD) returns 0, just after its HHH aborted its >> emulaiton. >> > > PLEASE PLAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THESE EXACT WORDS > > DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH > that can possibly exist never returns. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========