Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- HHH(DDD)==0

On 10/8/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/8/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/8/24 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/8/2024 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/8/24 5:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/8/2024 3:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/8/24 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/8/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/8/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/8/24 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/8/2024 8:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/8/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/8/2024 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/7/24 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/7/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/7/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/7/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/7/24 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/7/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/7/24 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/7/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/7/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/7/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/6/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/6/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/6/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

>
No, the design of HHH does abort its emulation, because if you had a DIFFERENT HHH, which would be given a DIFFERENT DDD (since DDD includes the HHH that it is calling) it would fail worse at the task at the meta- level by not answering.
>

>
That you are not addressing my points seems to be over your head.
>

>
No, the fact that I *AM* adddressing your points and pointing out your error just proves that you are nothing but a stupid idiot.
>
That you don't even try to point out an error in what I say, proves that you don't actually care about what is right, but that you just want to blindly hold on to your position. The fact that you consistantly snip out much of the arguement shows that you know you are defeated, but still insist on your WRONG position.
>
Halting is a property of PROGRAMS.

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Terminating is a property of finite string machine descriptions.
>

>
And, for the PROGRAM DDD, must include the FULL decription of the HHH that it calls.
>

>
It does and the source-code specifies that it does
yet this is simply over-your-head.
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>

>
But that isn't the finite string you are claiming above.
>
When you include the code of HHH in DDD, then when you hypotosize HHH not aborting, that hypothetical HHH is still given the DDD that calls the HHH that DOES, and your hypothetical HHH proves that this HHH is wrong.
>

>
No it continues to be you fail to pay complete attention
to every detail of every words that I said.
>
*THE FOLLOWING REMAINS TRUE NO MATTER WHAT HHH DOES*
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns.
>

>
No, because *DDD*, the one that was emulated by each of the HHH, will HALT if that HHH(DDD) returns 0, just after its HHH aborted its emulaiton.
>

>
PLEASE PLAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THESE EXACT WORDS
>
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH
that can possibly exist never returns.
>
Your incorrect paraphrase of my words proves that
you are either clueless or deliberately deceptive.
I am going with clueless.
>

>
No, and please *PAY* 100% complete attention to these exact words.
>
>
DDD emulated by HHH is NOT the same thing as the emulation of DDD by HHH.
>
DDD emulated by HHH, is the full behavior of the full program DDD, which one we are talking about. That behavior does not "stop" just becuase the HHH that was emulating it stopped its emulation.
>
>
I didn't "paraphrase" your words, I looked that the exact words you said, and looked at the grammatical construction. If you disagree with my analysys, point out the error.
>

>
Every executed HHH that returns 0 correctly reports that
no DDD emulated by its corresponding HHH ever returns.
>
You paraphrased this as some kind of "vacuous truth".
>

>
I didn't paraphrase you, I showed you what the words mean, but apparently you are too stupid to understand.
>
How can those HHH be correct when there answer is wrong.
>
There answer is wrong because for EVERY HHH that returned 0, the DDD that the emulated WILL return,

>
"the DDD that the emulated WILL return"
Seems like gibberish nonsense.

>
type, the DDD that was emullated WILL return
>

>
counter-factual
>

>
Proven by your own traces.
>

>
01 void DDD()
02 {
03  HHH(DDD);
04  return;
05 }
>
Every executed HHH emulates 01,02,03 of DDD
then either endlessly emulates itself emulating lines 01,02,03
of DDD never reaching line 04 of DDD or aborts the emulation
before ever reaching line 04 of DDD and returns some value.

>
So, you are not ADMITTING that the above is not a proper "finite- string" represention of the program DDD, as it doesn't define what DDD actually does as it depend on which of the choices HHH does.
>

>
This may all be your unintentional inability
to pay close enough attention.

>
No, it is you not understanding English, and it seems INTENTIONAL DECEPTIVE just showing your pathological lying.
>

>
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH
that can possibly exist never returns
NO MATTER WTF THAT ITS EXECUTED HHH DOES.
>
>

>
No, if HHH(DDD) returns 0 when it is directly executed, then it will return 0 to DDD when DDD is directly exectuted

>
Changing the subject counts as a strawman deception rebuttal.
Terminating is a property of finite string machine descriptions.

>
So, you are admitting that your work is just rubbish.
>
Terminationg is a property of a Machine/Program
>
Remember the definition, a Machine halts when it reachs a final state. And a non-halting machine is a machine the NEVER reaches a final state, even after an unlimited number of steps.
>
Finite-Strings are just ways we encode data to give to machines as a representation for things they can not directly process.
>
I guess you failed CS 101.
>
>

>

or correctly (and completely emulaitod, something that HHH can't do), and thus DDD halts.
>

>
DDD cannot be completely emulated by HHH for the same sort
of logical impossible reason that squares cannot be round.

>
Right, and since HHH can not completely emulate DDD, even when it is a halting program, HHH can't use its only emulation as the defining characterist of the input.
>
You just agreeing that your whole premise is just a strawman, and that you have wasted the last decades of your life on your own errors.
>
>

>
My above paragraph is factually correct and your
paraphrase of this paragraph is factually incorrect.
>
>

>
Your paragraph has factually correct statements in it that proves that you conclusion is just incorrect.
>
The fact that you can't point out the errors in what I say, says that you accept my explaination and are admitting that you are just a liar.
>
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.
>

>
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH
that can possibly exist never returns
NO MATTER WTF THAT ITS EXECUTED HHH DOES.
>
>

>
Just more of your lying eqivocation.
>
The direct exectuion or complete emulation of DDD, which is what you statement actually refers to have been proven BY YOU to halt when it is simulated.
>
This is what the term "DDD emulated by ... never returns" refers to.
>
PERIOD.
>
Any other meaning means you are just admitting to be lying about working on the Halting Problem for the last two decaded.
>
Yes, the emulation of DDD by HHH doesn't reach that point, but that is NOT what you statement means, except by trying to invoke an equivocation of the words.
>
Thus it is shown 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.
>
Sorry, you are just showing that you just don't care about what is true, but only that you want to push your false claims. This just shows that you are nothing but a pathological liar. The fact that you then at times claim that you have never lied, just proves that you have destroyed your own ability to reason about the truth, just showing that you are the poster child example of the seared conscious that happens when a person just continues to lie and not be bothered by it.
>
This just seals your fate to end up in the fire of Gehenna that you like to quote at people to try to make them be afraid that they might be lying, not understanding that you are just heaping curses upon yourself.
>
Sorry, it seems you at some point just sold yourself to the devil, and he is in the process of claiming you now.

 DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns

So, no attempt to rebute the charge of equivocation, so you are just admitting that this is what you are doing.
Just repeating yur error over and over proves that you are apparently suffering from some form of insanity, thinking that just repeating your lies over and over will some how make them true.
Note, I contiue to point out logical factts to support my position, and can vary them as it is support in many ways.
You can just repeat your same lies, and can't explain them, becuase your lies have nothing to base them on, and to try to break them down to simpler concepts just make it obvious that you have nothing to go on.

 thus each of the directly executed HHH emulators that does
return 0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior.
 On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
 >      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
 > someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
 > Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
 > incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
 > must surely have better things to do.  *Meanwhile, you surely noticed*
 > *that Peter is running rings around you*
 

So, do you accept what he said about you? or is this just another of your creative editing that just shows hou you LIE:

   Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No-one sensible
is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of articles, ago
people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, but anything
sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth roughly what you
are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, not using HHH
and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think you are trying
to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No more than one
side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively insult you are, in
fact, trying to help.

I guess since you think his opinion is worth quoting as evidence means you also must agree with his conclusions about yourself.
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 IT IS OK
Thus sealing your place in the pit of fire