Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of
 my paper
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 18:34:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
 <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org>
 <vf3os0$hqgf$1@dont-email.me>
 <de0c3b304ab574b45594ec05085c193fd687f9f7@i2pn2.org>
 <vf40l9$ja0c$3@dont-email.me>
 <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org>
 <vf5lln$v6n5$2@dont-email.me>
 <a9302e42f51777b34f4a7c695247ea98f0f060ad@i2pn2.org>
 <vf5vi4$10jkk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:34:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3093442"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vf5vi4$10jkk$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4856
Lines: 74

On 10/21/24 12:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:
>> 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()`.
> 
> Did ChatGPT generate that?
> If it did then I need *ALL the input that caused it to generate that*
> 
> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
> If you did not start with the basis of this link then you cheated.
> 
No, someone using some REAL INTELEGENCE, as opposed to a program using 
"artificial intelegence" that had been loaded with false premises and 
other lies.

Sorry, you are just showing that you have NO intelegence, and are 
depending on a program that includes a disclaimed on every page that its 
answers may have mistakes.