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: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:51:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <vemo4j$1roph$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$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>
 <vemc30$1q255$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b7102e401dc2d872ab53fd94fc433841caf3170@i2pn2.org>
 <vemhn0$1qqfr$2@dont-email.me>
 <bfa96cc6bd41f1351cf3c47ec5712b7fc3803f6d@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 23:51:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ebbafc8de1d261770d7d4f83dd30cde";
	logging-data="1958705"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/57qXggkSuMegnt9YQ0SnN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AB55EIgQrcuyzO0Xb2FsfWtiCng=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <bfa96cc6bd41f1351cf3c47ec5712b7fc3803f6d@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5427

On 10/15/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:01:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 10/15/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> 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:
>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> Oh, did you take out the check if HHH is the root simulator?
>> There is some code that was obsolete several years ago.
> I don't follow your repo. Can you point me to the relevant commit?
> It doesn't seem to have happened this year.
> 

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
Halt7.c was updated last month.

>>>> 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.
>>> That point can never come in the complete simulation of a non-
>>> terminating input, because it is infinite.
>> You and Richard never seemed to understand this previously.
> You seemed to not understand that a simulation may be nonterminating.
> 

Sure yet only when the input is non-terminating.

>>>>>> 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.
>>> By "pure" I mean having no side effects. You mean total vs. partial.
>> You may be half right. Only the analyzer must be pure.
>> The input is free to get stuck in an infinite loop.

> Sure. How can a function without side effects have different behaviour?
> 
DDD is free to be totally screwed up every which way.
It is only HHH that must be a pure function.

>>>> 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.
>>> I thought DDD was fixed to only call HHH(DDD)?
>> Inputs are not required to be pure functions.

> Weren't we discussing the halting DDD(){HHH(DDD);} before?
> 
For many months now I have been talking about
the termination analyzer HHH applied to input DDD.

I am not aware of ever referring to HHH as a halt decider.
When I talk about halt deciders I talk about the Linz proof.

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