Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of
 my paper
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:56:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a8cafad455bad368fdea48bd420331d128f40c66@i2pn2.org>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
	<6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org>
	<vf3os0$hqgf$1@dont-email.me>
	<de0c3b304ab574b45594ec05085c193fd687f9f7@i2pn2.org>
	<vf410h$ja0c$4@dont-email.me>
	<5de37bd3d4ba13a96b3ca052e510601ea2447ee4@i2pn2.org>
	<vf4k3j$pljj$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:56:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3158786"; 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: 22275
Lines: 467

Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:08:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/20/2024 10:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/20/24 6:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>>>>> This is the only new material that sums up the essence of what a
>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for the pattern that it detects to be correct, it must be that
>>>>>> all input that exhibit that pattern must never halt when run.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If your try to get away with telling ChatGPT that it will explain
>>>>> your error in great detail as it already does when I brought that
>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
>>>>>
>>>> Righr, you LIED tl Chat GPT about it, and being an AI, it is dumb
>>>> enough to believe it.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> So, your claims are just proven to be lies.
>>>
>>> Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the
>>> directly executed DDD()?
>> 
>> Since you keep on LYING about what "terminating behavior" is, of course
>> you keep getting the wrong answers.
>> 
> I only gave it less than the same half page of basis and it explained
> the details of your error very well when it answered the above question:
> Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the
> directly executed DDD()?
> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2





You said:



void DDD() 

{

  HHH(DDD); 

  return;  
} 



int main() 

{ 

  HHH(Infinite_Recursion);

  HHH(DDD);  

  DDD(DDD);

}



Do the function calls from main() return to main() ?


ChatGPT said:
Yes, the function calls from main() do return to main(), but only after 
they have executed completely. Let's break it down.


2. HHH(DDD);
DDD calls HHH(DDD).
When HHH(DDD) is executed, HHH will start simulating DDD, but DDD itself 
calls HHH(DDD) again. This creates a repetitive, self-referencing pattern.
The termination analyzer HHH detects this repetitive behavior and 
recognizes it as non-terminating. So, it aborts the simulation of DDD and 
returns 0 to main().




You said:
HHH(DDD) reports that its input does not halt. 
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT


So, in summary, HHH(DDD) correctly identifies that DDD does not halt and 
returns 0 to indicate this non-halting behavior.

You said:
DDD() invoked from main() halts. 
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
No, DDD() invoked from main() does not halt.

Function Behavior of DDD():
The function DDD() contains the statement HHH(DDD);. This means that when 
DDD() is called, it calls HHH(DDD).
Now, HHH(DDD) simulates DDD, and in that simulation, DDD calls HHH(DDD) 
again, leading to an infinite cycle of calling itself.
Role of the Termination Analyzer HHH:
The termination analyzer HHH is designed to detect non-terminating 
behavior. When HHH simulates DDD and sees this pattern of infinite 
recursive calls, it identifies that DDD will not terminate on its own.
HHH then aborts the simulation of DDD and returns 0 to signal non-
termination.
Invoking DDD() from main():
When main() calls DDD(), DDD() immediately calls HHH(DDD), which leads to 
HHH detecting the non-terminating behavior of DDD.
While HHH itself will terminate by returning 0, the function DDD() is 
intrinsically non-terminating because of its recursive structure (calling 
HHH(DDD) infinitely).
Thus, while HHH detects the non-termination and returns, the function 
DDD() itself does not halt—it has a built-in infinite recursive loop of 
calling HHH(DDD). Therefore, invoking DDD() from main() will lead to a 
situation where HHH detects non-termination, but the function DDD() does 
not halt on its own.

You said:
What do you mean the function DDD() does not halt on its own?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
When I say that DDD() does not halt "on its own," I mean that the function 
DDD() itself contains behavior that, if left unchecked, would lead to 
infinite recursion and thus would never terminate.

Function DDD():
c
Copy code
void DDD() {
  HHH(DDD); 
  return;
}
DDD() calls HHH(DDD), which means that the termination analyzer HHH is 
asked to analyze whether DDD() halts.
What does HHH(DDD) do? It simulates DDD(). But in simulating DDD(), it 
runs into the same call: HHH(DDD). This recursive pattern means that if 
you just keep simulating DDD(), it will lead to a never-ending cycle of 
calling HHH(DDD) again and again. This would cause infinite recursion if 
it weren’t for HHH's ability to detect non-terminating behavior.
Role of HHH:
The key role of HHH is that it can detect this infinite recursive pattern.
When HHH simulates DDD() and sees that it keeps calling HHH(DDD) (i.e., 
creating a loop), it recognizes this as non-terminating behavior and stops 
the simulation. It returns 0 to signal that DDD() does not halt.
What Would Happen Without HHH?
Without the termination analyzer HHH, if DDD() simply called itself in an 
unbounded manner, this would result in infinite recursion.
In normal circumstances, an infinitely recursive function like DDD() would 
never terminate (i.e., it would not "halt"). Eventually, it would cause a 
stack overflow, where the program runs out of memory due to the infinite 
chain of function calls.
Summary:
"On its own": DDD() would infinitely call HHH(DDD) recursively, never 
reaching an end.
With HHH: The analyzer intervenes, detects the infinite loop, and 
terminates the simulation by returning 0.
So, DDD() does not halt naturally due to its recursive structure. The only 
reason DDD() doesn't cause an infinite recursion is that HHH detects this 
and stops the simulation. That’s why I said it doesn’t halt "on its own"—
it's HHH that prevents the infinite recursion by identifying the non-
halting behavior and aborting.

You said:
Can the DDD simulated by HHH ever reach its own return instruction? 
ChatGPT said:
No, the DDD() function, as simulated by HHH, can never reach its own 
return instruction.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========