Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.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
Subject: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:44:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a20cf5f40db4e9e4e5023a48d13e220443c4dea7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <veimqs$14que$1@dont-email.me>
 <veipf3$15764$1@dont-email.me>
 <36ecdefcca730806c7bd9ec03e326fac1a9c8464@i2pn2.org>
 <vejcoj$1879f$1@dont-email.me>
 <034767682966b9ac642993dd2fa0d181c21dfffc@i2pn2.org>
 <vekj4q$1hrgd$1@dont-email.me>
 <f8a15594bf0623a229214e2fb62ce4f4a2bd7116@i2pn2.org>
 <velpm2$1n3gb$6@dont-email.me>
 <8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org>
 <vemc30$1q255$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b7102e401dc2d872ab53fd94fc433841caf3170@i2pn2.org>
 <vemhn0$1qqfr$2@dont-email.me>
 <61ffc8131435005aaf8976ddbf109b8f16c77668@i2pn2.org>
 <ven83o$2230b$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:44:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2284055"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <ven83o$2230b$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 10/15/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Yes it does.

Your full trace of the emulation of DDD by HHH shows that HHH emulates 
itself making a decision based on the value of that flag.

> 
> It only effects the termination status decision
> that I conclusively prove is unequivocally correct
> no matter how HHH detects this.

Nope, just prove that you logic is based on lying,

> 
> Every HHH that returns 0 correctly reports that DDD
> emulated by HHH cannot possible reach its own return
> instruction EVEN IF HHH DOES THIS BY WILD GUESS.

But the DDD does reach the final return statement, just not in the 
emulation done by HHH.

An aborted emulation can't be used by itself of evidence of 
non-termination, so you are just showing that you are insisting on using 
equivocation to assert your incorrect answer.

> 
> Of every HHH that returns anything at all, the
> ones that return 0 are necessarily correct.
> 

Nope, not if they are to be termination analysers by the industry 
standard definitions, as their input will halt.

Thus, you are just showing that your whole argument is based on lies and 
deception.