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

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.
Everyone that has been disagreeing with me insists
that a correct emulation of DDD by HHH must make
sure to ignore what the DDD/HHH code specifies.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer