Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Four Chatbots figure out on their own without prompting that
 HHH(DDD)==0
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 22:23:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6e844dddaaeb76a5edf6671984045eb525ecf76d@i2pn2.org>
References: <105bdps$1g61u$1@dont-email.me> <105c0lk$1k7ip$1@dont-email.me>
 <105c22v$1k9r9$3@dont-email.me> <105c5rt$1l4j7$1@dont-email.me>
 <105cddu$1r7mi$1@dont-email.me>
 <35481692c9b805cd713086659451ee8a456d3d16@i2pn2.org>
 <105gase$2pk90$3@dont-email.me>
 <4750857dbcb68380c00c2cc2752cf3371ef6ae02@i2pn2.org>
 <105gr3s$2t8jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <76de7d874ac75cb915c86b297191c6ed4fbedfdf.camel@gmail.com>
 <105gsoi$2tpa1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 02:23:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1391841"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <105gsoi$2tpa1$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/19/25 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/19/2025 2:29 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 14:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/19/2025 12:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/19/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that HHH cannot 
>>>>>> simulate
>>>>>> DDD past the call to HHH. You just draw the wrong conclusion from it.
>>>>>> (Aside: what "seems" to you will convince no one. You can just call
>>>>>> everybody dishonest. Also, they are not "your reviewers".)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the purposes of this discussion this is the
>>>>> 100% complete definition of HHH. It is the exact
>>>>> same one that I give to all the chat bots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>>>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>>>>> and returns 0.
>>>>
>>>> So, the only HHH that meets your definition is the HHH that never
>>>> detects the pattern and aborts, and thus never returns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of the Chat bots conclude that HHH(DDD) is correct
>>> to reject its input as non-halting because this input
>>> specified recursive simulation. They figure this out
>>> on their own without any prompting.
>>>
>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/687aa4c2-b814-8011-9e7d-b85c03b291eb
>>
>> It is still nothing to do with the Halting Problem proof (Because it 
>> is POOH)
>>
> 
> It is a key element of my refutation of this proof
> because HHH also correctly determines that HHH(DD)==0.

But that isn't the correct answer, as DD() Halts since HHH(DD) returns 0.

All you

> 
> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly ever
> reach past its first statement because it specifies
> recursive simulation.

But Your HHH doesn't DO a correct smulation, so your claim is just fantasy,

> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> 

And that isn't the complete definition of the PROGRAM DD, thus showing 
that your arguement is just a category error.

Sorry, you are just proving how stupid and ignorant you are.

You admit to the facts that prove you don't know what you are talking 
about and are just a totally ignorant pathological liar.