Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of my paper Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:17:49 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org> <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:17:49 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2999698"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4026 Lines: 58 Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:41:11 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 10/21/2024 3:39 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:25 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 10/20/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/20/24 4:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/20/2024 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>> Note, I DID tell that to Chat GPT, and it agrees that DDD, when the >>>> criteria is what does DDD actually do, which is what the question >>>> MUST be about to be about the Termination or Halting problem, then >>>> DDD WILL HALT since HHH(DDD) will return 0 to it. >>> No one ever bother to notice that (a) A decider cannot have its actual >>> self as its input. >> lolwut? A decider is a normal program, and it should be handled like >> every other input. >>> (b) In the case of the pathological input DDD to emulating termination >>> analyzer HHH the behavior of the directly executed DDD (not an input >>> to HHH) is different than the behavior of DDD that is an input to HHH. >> DDD *is* the input to HHH. >>> The executed DDD calls HHH() and this call returns. The emulated DDD >>> calls HHH(DDD) and this call cannot possibly return. >> But whyyy doesn't HHH abort? > You can click on the link and cut-and-paste the question to see the > whole answer in compete detail. I am not interested in arguing with a chatbot. Make the points yourself. 1. **Nature of `DDD()`**: - `DDD()` simply calls `HHH(DDD)`. It does not perform any additional operations that could create a loop or prevent it from returning. - If `HHH` returns (whether by aborting or completing its simulation), `DDD()` can return to its caller. 2. **Behavior of `HHH`**: - If `HHH` is able to simulate `DDD()` and return, it should report that `DDD()` terminates. If `HHH` aborts due to detecting non-termination, it does not reflect the actual execution of `DDD()`; it leads to a conclusion that may not align with the true behavior. 3. **Contradiction in Results**: - If `HHH` claims that `DDD()` does not halt, but in reality, `DDD()` can terminate once `HHH` returns, then `HHH` is providing an incorrect analysis. - The contradiction lies in the ability of `HHH` to detect non- termination theoretically while simultaneously allowing `DDD()` to halt in practical execution. ### Conclusion: Given the nature of `DDD()` and how `HHH` operates, it becomes clear that `HHH` cannot consistently provide a correct answer about whether `DDD()` halts. The dynamics of calling and returning create a scenario where the outcomes conflict. Thus, `HHH` is fundamentally flawed in its role as a termination analyzer for functions like `DDD()`. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.