Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: References: <8348c86ef6e14ffd0bd7629858f3d3d445eb47d6@i2pn2.org> <8f8f81ca09cc2a36481999e0408ff2e3ca780f39@i2pn2.org> <085a1c3ee93ae5388d60b4b195fdb7a0b1ae70ed@i2pn2.org> <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@i2pn2.org> <4ead3c7dcd0cb13a6c655716f106bb836aa4bc47@i2pn2.org> <030f6c2bf84dc1776787d597adcf5c2015cc861d@i2pn2.org> <8c474bc7aee03e8eedb712f48c4b39c1c9e88a7b@i2pn2.org> <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 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: 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 ==========