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

On 10/6/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/6/2024 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/5/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/5/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/5/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/5/2024 10:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
No DDD emulated by any corresponding HHH ever returns
and the HHH that emulates it does return an answer
corresponding to this behavior of this emulated DDD.
>

>
That is a lie based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of the words.
>

>
*No DDD emulated by any corresponding HHH ever returns*
Until you understand this point you remain clueless.
>
>

>
Which is just a LIE as I explained.
>
If HHH(DDD) returns 0, as your claimed correct one does, then DDD will return and that answer is wrong.
>

 I have proven that you are factually incorrect. This is
simply over-your-head. You seem to have the fallacy of
equivocation error in your reasoning. You might not even
know what that is. You may look it up and still not know
what that is.
 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, you have proven that you don't understand what is truth, but that you just prefer to lie.
And a big part of this is that you just chose to not learn what the word mean.
"DDD" is the program itself, and whit "it" does is what it does when actually executed.
A "Correct Simulation" of a program does exactly the same thing as the program itself, just partially simulating a program is NOT "correctly simulating" it, no matter what you want to try to claim.
Thus it is a FACT (unrefuted by you, even if you want to claim differently) that EVERY DDD that calls an HHH(DDD) that returns an answer, will see that same HHH return that same answer and thus return.
What doesn't get to the end is the PARTIAL emulation that those HHH did, BUT THAT IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF DDD, but the behavior of the emulation by HHH of that DDD.
Thus, NONE of the HHH(DDD) that return 0 are correct, and you assertion that it is is just a BLANTENT AND DELIBERATE LIE.
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.