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

On 10/5/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/5/2024 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/5/24 9:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/5/2024 8:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/5/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/5/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/5/24 8:21 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/5/2024 5:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/4/24 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:

>
That you are unable to understand that it is easily conclusively
proven (below) that the emulated HHH does emulate its DDD correctly
is why your double-talk gibberish rebuttal fails.
>

>
Nope, the trace actually proves the opposite.
>

>
The following execution trace conclusively proves that
HHH emulated by itself does emulate the first four lines
of DDD correctly.

>
Right, and then makes the error of PRESUMEING INCORREDTLY that HHH(DDD) will not return,

>
That this is over-your-head really is not my mistake.
*DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly return*

>
No, it is beyond YOUR head that the fact that HHH does abort its emulation means its doesn't show if the HHH that it was emulating will return on not.
>

 This is simply over your head.
The infinite set of DDD emulated by HHH
never returns no matter what its corresponding HHH does.

No, that is just a false statement based on you changing the meaning of the words.
EVERY DDD that calls an HHH(DDD) that ever returns an answer will halt.
The fact that that HHH aborts its emulation before it gets there doesn't change that fact.
The quesiton is about the full behavior of the machine that HHH is trying to learn the behavior of by emulating it, but giving up.
You are trying to not answer that question, but the question of does HHH emulate its input to a final state, which is a different question, and claiming it is the halting problem is just a LIE.
You do sometimes switch to a different deception, like you are doing above where you abandon the definitions of the problem completely.
HHH and DDD are NOT an infinite set, but are perhaps specific members of such a set. Confusing the set with the members is just sign of total ignorance.
The halting question is about a program looking at a program, so trying to make it about a set of programs looking at a set of programs is just a category error, and you repeating that error again just proves that you are just an intentional ignorant liar.

 *Woefully insufficient professional decorum ruins your credibility*
 

Professional ethics says you call out people you spread intentional lies.
I will remind you that you fired the first shot and called me a liar first. Your problem is you don't have any grounds to back your claims, while I do.
I even gave you an option to try an prove one of your statement under the condition that if you were wrong you would agree to totally drop the subject, but you didn't take it up, because you KNEW you were wrong.
So, you are just showing 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.