Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<a9302e42f51777b34f4a7c695247ea98f0f060ad@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:17:49 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a9302e42f51777b34f4a7c695247ea98f0f060ad@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:17:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2999698"; 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: 4026
Lines: 58

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()`.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.