Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:55:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 101 Message-ID: References: <36ecdefcca730806c7bd9ec03e326fac1a9c8464@i2pn2.org> <034767682966b9ac642993dd2fa0d181c21dfffc@i2pn2.org> <8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org> <3b7102e401dc2d872ab53fd94fc433841caf3170@i2pn2.org> <61ffc8131435005aaf8976ddbf109b8f16c77668@i2pn2.org> <3f372192847716d7441d39a56c048bca6f7a9348@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:55:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f097d53e4abea8ea9babea4b430282e3"; logging-data="2364247"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XYuc7L19Fc74PKl0bBIqU" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:RAdcHQxNykcXOi4oT5IDME4hBDc= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <3f372192847716d7441d39a56c048bca6f7a9348@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 6287 On 10/16/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote: > Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:26:37 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 10/16/2024 1:30 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:23:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/15/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:11:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 7:06 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:49:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e >>>>>>>>>>>> When you click on the link and try to explain how HHH must be >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong when it reports that DDD does not terminate because DDD >>>>>>>>>>>> does terminate it will explain your mistake to you. >>>>>>>>>>> I did that, and it admitted that DDD halts, it just tries to >>>>>>>>>>> justify why a wrong answer must be right. >>>>>>>>>> It explains in great detail that another different DDD (same >>>>>>>>>> machine code different process context) seems to terminate only >>>>>>>>>> because the recursive emulation that it specifies has been >>>>>>>>>> aborted at its second recursive call. >>>>>>>>> Yes! It really has different code, by way of the static Root >>>>>>>>> variable. >>>>>>>>> No wonder it behaves differently. >>>>>>>> There are no static root variables. There never has been any "not >>>>>>>> a pure function of its inputs" aspect to emulation. >>>>>>> Oh, did you take out the check if HHH is the root simulator? >>>>>> There is some code that was obsolete several years ago. >>>>> No, that code is still active. it is the source of the value for the >>>>> variable Root that is passed around, and is checked in the code to >>>>> alter the behavior. >>>> It has no effect on the trace itself. >>> Other than producing a different trace. Seriously, why else should it >>> be in there? >> The whole purpose of the root variable to for storing and examining the >> trace. It has nothing to do with the actual x86 emulation. > Nope. It is a flag for checking if we are in the outermost simulator. > This has no effect on the sequence of correctly emulated steps. It only has an effect of the length of this sequence. At the time that HHH aborts its emulation there is already complete proof that it was required to abort this sequence to prevent its own non-termination. We are only quibbling over whether or not it saw this complete proof in the proper way. That the proof exists is conclusively proven to anyone having sufficient software engineering skill. >>>> It only affects the termination status decision that I conclusively >>>> prove is unequivocally correct no matter how HHH detects this. >>> Sure, "DDD is the same program, except for a variable which directly >>> changes termination" lol. >> Without the root variable the trace would be the exact same trace >> (except not terminate) thus the root variable has no effect what-so-ever >> on the claim that I have been consistently making for several weeks. > Exactly! It is only for changing the answer HHH gives about DDD. It has been completely proven that HHH does report correctly. We are only quibbling over the way that HHH determined this correct report. > That > changes the whole trace except for the first few instructions. It does not change any aspect of the trace until the trace conclusively proves that DDD cannot possibly ever reach its own "return" instruction no matter what HHH does. We have only ever been quibbling over how HHH sees this. > What was > your claim again? > void DDD() { HHH(DDD); return; } When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns. Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns 0 correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer