Path: ...!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: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 19:18:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ec7a97c3c5719d743128f6c110fec0b4acaf7aa3@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>
 <a8cafad455bad368fdea48bd420331d128f40c66@i2pn2.org>
 <vf95h4$1lf0q$1@dont-email.me>
 <4e8485082217a3ca70ed26311ef69e153996c8b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vfar3k$21k64$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:18:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3387963"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vfar3k$21k64$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5340
Lines: 95

On 10/23/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/23/2024 1:56 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:30:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/22/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> 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() ?
>>>>
>>> That is how you cheated.
>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e *Here is
>>> what I actually said*
>>
>> Yeah, we know you mangle quotes. 
> 
> When a quote is less than 100% precisely correct I call it you.
> Most of the rebuttal of my work are the strawman deception of
> rebutting an incorrect paraphrase of what I am saying.
> 
> Because you did not provide the input that derived the output
> you made your result unable to be reproduced. Unless and until
> I can reproduce your result I must assume that it is somehow
> erroneous. I tried and tried to get that result and every time
> ChatGPT 4 found an error in every rebuttal of my work.
> 
>> Sorry if I actually didn't paste the
>> whole thing yet another time. You do realise your link doesn't allow
>> changing the previous input? Even so, it don't see how that would
>> constitute "cheating", if ChatGPT supposedly "knows the truth".
>>
> 
> 

And when your logic isn't preciesely correct, but based on INCORRECT 
definitions, we call you on it, and you just whine and complain that we 
are being unfair and not letting you change the rules.

Sorry, but all youi are talking about is Olcott's theory of POOP, and 
that dirty diaper is all it is worth.