Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ChatGPT explains why rebuttals of my work are incorrect
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 22:56:50 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vevhn4$3oii5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <veco64$hk5$4@dont-email.me> <vecrqv$1bav$2@dont-email.me>
 <vedfnq$43kg$1@dont-email.me> <veef3v$93ft$1@dont-email.me>
 <veeinu$9l7s$1@dont-email.me> <20241013093342.546@kylheku.com>
 <vei1aq$11jh4$1@dont-email.me> <vek594$1c3q7$1@dont-email.me>
 <F9-dndrjC9PIh5L6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vev2t7$3i2oe$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 07:56:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7e7585e2b1fd89460481779f0d910934";
	logging-data="3951173"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18EIJ0ztBf6BAv9cioD/luvrJjwHusxaVw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FOaIN0jaTbB4Yidg5uujuBEPrWE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vev2t7$3i2oe$8@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3896

On 10/18/2024 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/15/2024 8:43 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 14/10/2024 23:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2024 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2024 11:34 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-10-12, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2024 11:28 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12.10.2024 11:32, Jan van den Broek wrote:
>>>>>>>> 2024-10-12, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>> schrieb:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Schnipp]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I see it, the main Halting Problem is Olcott not halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL! - A very nice one. Thanks for that. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I second that. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> You're likely thousand-seconding that. The Olcott not halting joke
>>>>> is many years old now, and will likely come up again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My cancer has gotten worse.
>>>>
>>>> *ChatGPT explains why rebuttals of my work are incorrect*
>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
>>>>
>>>> I had to dumb this down from the original halting problem
>>>> input so that reviewers can verify that HHH is correct
>>>> without hardly paying any attention at all:
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
>>>> then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Isn't that similar to:
>>>
>>> void foobar()
>>> {
>>>      foobar();
>>> }
>>>
>>> ? >
>>
>> Similar, but different because HHH only performs a /partial/ step by 
>> step emulation of DDD - it stops emulating after a while and returns, 
>> so DDD() halts. 
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
> language cannot possibly reach its own return instruction
> no matter what HHH does.
> 
> When HHH rejects DDD on this basis it is necessarily correct.

Is there any difference between 100% correct and necessarily correct?


> 
> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
> ChatGPT finally totally explains away all of the quibbling
> about whether HHH is correct to reject DDD as non-halting.
> 
>> foobar() will never halt (ignoring physical resource constraints like 
>> running out of stack).  foobar() undergoes infinite recursive call.  
>> DDD() exhibits /finite/ recursive emulation, then halts.
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>