Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:26:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <veobdt$284qn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$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>
 <61ffc8131435005aaf8976ddbf109b8f16c77668@i2pn2.org>
 <ven83o$2230b$1@dont-email.me>
 <bb5c503ba7e505b1901ff9e45f2881dd4d9a2853@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:26:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f097d53e4abea8ea9babea4b430282e3";
	logging-data="2364247"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+I0WnTkwpZlDAMp4Yz48qP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RKSX0Ts8yUnxnzWIs/0/o6G8es4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <bb5c503ba7e505b1901ff9e45f2881dd4d9a2853@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5148

On 10/16/2024 1:30 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:23:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/15/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> No, that code is still active. it is the source of the value for the
>>> variable Root that is passed around, and is checked in the code to
>>> alter the behavior.
>> It has no effect on the trace itself.
> Other than producing a different trace. Seriously, why else should it
> be in there?
> 

The whole purpose of the root variable to for storing
and examining the trace. It has nothing to do with the
actual x86 emulation.

>> It only affects the termination status decision that I conclusively
>> prove is unequivocally correct no matter how HHH detects this.

> Sure, "DDD is the same program, except for a variable which directly
> changes termination" lol.
> 

Without the root variable the trace would be the exact same
trace (except not terminate) thus the root variable has no
effect what-so-ever on the claim that I have been consistently
making for several weeks.

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

When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then
each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.

Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.

If HHH simply emulated N instructions of HHH and then returned
0 even this HHH would correctly report the above non-terminating
behavior. It didn't even look at its input and still got the
right answer.

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