Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- different execution traces have different behavior !!!

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.
You have accepted that results by failing to actually try to refute it.
All you need to refute it would be to show what is the first instruction actually correctly emulated (or would be emulated after by a real correct emulation) that differs from the actual exection, of this exact same program.
You keep on wanting to CHANGE the code of DDD to use a different HHH, and thus your logic is based on a lie.

 This is simply too difficult for you to understand.
 

Nope, and that phrase is just a code word for you can't come up with a good enough lie to hide your deception.
Your problem is that it really looks like I am much smarter than you, and see through your deceptions.
In other words, you are just proving that
PPPP   EEEEE  TTTTT  EEEEE  RRRR
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
PPPP   EEEEE    T    EEEEE  RRRR
P      E        T    E      R R
P      E        T    E      R  R
P      EEEEE    T    EEEEE  R   R
  OOO   L       CCC    OOO   TTTTT  TTTTT
O   O  L      C   C  O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C   C  O   O    T      T
  OOO   LLLLL   CCC    OOO     T      T
L     IIIII  EEEEE   SSS
L       I    E      S   S
L       I    E      S
L       I    EEEEE   SSS
L       I    E          S
L       I    E      S   S
LLLLL IIIII  EEEEE   SSS
AND THINKS THAT IS JUST OK.