Sujet : Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- My Stupid Mistake
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 07. Oct 2024, 01:05:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vdv8jg$1dnja$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…