Ignoring Y because it has X is the opposite of ignoring X.
It is fundamentally impossible to both ignore X and make decisions based on X at the same time.
Something cannot be both ignored and a key criterion.
Your argument is akin to saying that a company hiring process that "ignores race" means eliminating applicants based on their race. It is untrue. It is the opposite of true. And I think you know that, so please stop trolling.
> It is fundamentally impossible to both ignore X and make decisions based on X at the same time.
Of course you can - the former can be the action you take as a result of the decision. Choosing to not consider something is distinct from refusing to make a decision based on that something, but both are "ignoring" that something.
Again, this boils down to how "ignoring the situation" is interpreted. I can ignore situations with UB and proceed as if those situations aren't present, or I can ignore situations with UB and proceed as if the UB weren't present. The Standard's wording does not rule out one or the other.
In addition, why would the "ignore the existence of UB" not fall under "behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment"? That seems to match "pretend the UB were not present" much more closely.
> Your argument is akin to saying that a company hiring process that "ignores race" means
eliminating applicants based on their race.
No, it means that the hiring process makes decisions without considering what race-based effects that may have. If that happens to result in weird race-based outcomes, then that's what happens.
It is fundamentally impossible to both ignore X and make decisions based on X at the same time.
Something cannot be both ignored and a key criterion.
Your argument is akin to saying that a company hiring process that "ignores race" means eliminating applicants based on their race. It is untrue. It is the opposite of true. And I think you know that, so please stop trolling.