Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <vemc30$1q255$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:25:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ebbafc8de1d261770d7d4f83dd30cde";
	logging-data="1902757"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ytE/Y4o11v5HFPTWT4p7F"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Di63BbSKpIFWssCOqu9YbzoWYPo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4974

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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ChatGPT does correctly apply truth preserving operations to the
>>>>>>>>>> premises that it was provided regarding the behavior of DDD and
>>>>>>>>>> HHH.
>>>>>>>>>> *Try to find a mistake in its reasoning*
>>>>>>>>> No reasoning shown.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> It is nonsensical for HHH not to report that DDD terminates.
>>>>>> The explanation is quite good. I will take what you said to mean
>>>>>> that it was over your head or didn't bother to look at it.
>>>>>> You never confirmed that you even know what infinite recursion is.
>>>>> No, he means your argument is just non-sense, and it is just a
>>>>> blantant lie that you put forwards because you just don't understand
>>>>> what you are talking about.,
>>>> In other words you coward away from trying to convince ChatGPT that is
>>>> is incorrect.
>>> What do you mean. With one statement I got it to admit that the ACTUAL
>>> behavior of DDD was to halt.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Since you say that it is a YES man it should be easy for you to get it
>>>> to admit that it is wrong.
>>> Which I did,
>>>
>>>> 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.

Every termination analyzer that emulates itself emulating
its input has always been a pure function of this input
up to the point where emulation stops.

>> You err because you fail to understand how the same C/x86 function
>> invoked in a different process context can have different behavior.
> Do explain how a pure function can change.
> 

Non-terminating C functions do not ever return, thus cannot
possibly be pure functions.

HHH is a pure function of its input the whole time that it
is emulating.

DDD has no inputs and is allowed to be any finite string
of x86 code. Inputs to HHH are by no means required to ever
return AT ALL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function


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