Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: ChatGPT correctly analyzed the first page of my paper:
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:13:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <vdhaja$2qm1j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2024 19:13:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3c7c24a7eae123675b19d696aac0656a";
	logging-data="2971699"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19EvIvQS8MIWLmn/RhY+4iM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K1vMWVBDEHCOV4I6GXfLzbySJ/A=
In-Reply-To: <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5340

On 10/1/2024 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:

Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 


> 
> https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
> 

The above link to a ChatGPT conversation is entirely
complete with the first part being the entire input
provided to ChatGPT. The second part is the output that
ChatGPT deriving from analyzing this input.

Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}

Every C programmer that knows that when HHH emulates the machine 
language of, Infinite_Recursion it must abort this emulation so that 
itself can terminate normally.

When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating 
termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject this input as non-halting 
by returning 0 to its caller.

We get the same repetitive pattern when DDD is correctly emulated by 
HHH. HHH emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to do this again.

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The code and concept you're presenting touch upon the halting problem, 
recursive function calls, and how a termination analyzer might handle 
pathological input. Here's a breakdown of what's happening:

1. Function Definitions and the Halting Problem
Infinite_Recursion: This function calls itself infinitely without a base 
case, meaning it will never halt on its own. A termination analyzer, 
like HHH, should detect this infinite loop and prevent its own infinite 
recursion by terminating the emulation early.

DDD: This function calls HHH on itself, creating a scenario where HHH 
has to repeatedly emulate a function that keeps invoking HHH with itself 
as an argument. This creates a similar non-terminating scenario from the 
perspective of a termination analyzer.

2. Role of HHH as a Termination Analyzer
HHH(ptr P) is a termination analyzer that takes a pointer to a function 
and decides whether the function will terminate (halt) or not. If the 
function halts, HHH returns some value (possibly 1), and if the function 
does not halt, it returns 0.

In the case of Infinite_Recursion, when HHH tries to emulate it, the 
analyzer should detect that this function will never halt and return 0 
to indicate this.

In the case of DDD, which involves HHH calling itself repeatedly, HHH 
should again detect the infinite recursion through the repeated 
invocations and reject the input as non-halting, returning 0 as well.

3. Pathological Input and Repetitive Patterns
The term "pathological input" refers to input that causes a system to 
behave abnormally or in a difficult-to-analyze manner. In this case, DDD 
and Infinite_Recursion are pathological inputs for a termination 
analyzer because they create non-terminating recursive behavior.

The repetitive pattern you mention arises because DDD essentially 
creates a recursive loop of HHH invoking itself through DDD. When HHH 
correctly emulates DDD, it realizes that the recursion will never 
terminate and thus correctly identifies this as a non-halting scenario, 
returning 0.

4. Correct Behavior of HHH
The crux of the situation is that a well-designed termination analyzer 
(like HHH) is supposed to reject any input that leads to non-halting 
behavior. Both Infinite_Recursion and DDD are such cases, and HHH must 
abort the simulation of these functions and return 0 to indicate 
non-termination.

Conclusion
The code and explanation illustrate how a termination analyzer, like 
HHH, should handle pathological inputs like infinite recursion 
(Infinite_Recursion) and self-referential function calls (DDD). In both 
cases, HHH correctly detects that these functions will never terminate 
and returns 0 to signal this. The analyzer is not fooled by the 
recursive structures and correctly identifies them as non-halting scenarios.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer