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: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 23:31:26 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <53d3ed2cfd983f3b895f6509020bcbe98e86d3e6@i2pn2.org> References: <8f8f81ca09cc2a36481999e0408ff2e3ca780f39@i2pn2.org> <085a1c3ee93ae5388d60b4b195fdb7a0b1ae70ed@i2pn2.org> <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@i2pn2.org> <4ead3c7dcd0cb13a6c655716f106bb836aa4bc47@i2pn2.org> <030f6c2bf84dc1776787d597adcf5c2015cc861d@i2pn2.org> <8c474bc7aee03e8eedb712f48c4b39c1c9e88a7b@i2pn2.org> <243d02f2d3397e7f681ebdad2e9b7d8a346bb75c@i2pn2.org> <37c291e02299479ab8b55256f3744fe0ba48f6db@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 03:31:27 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1197939"; 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: 24825 Lines: 512 On 10/8/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/8/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/8/24 7:10 PM, 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting is a property of PROGRAMS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========