Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ChatGPT explains why rebuttals of my work are incorrect
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 05:47:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <vf02n7$3rc0m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <veco64$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> <vevhn4$3oii5$1@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 12:47:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2f4596ff028e636d7320aa11ac5f85c";
	logging-data="4042774"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XZsrk1uFgJ+wmXYt6mama"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JbbnGiaUlfW7vkHUMrlhw08XjQk=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241019-2, 10/19/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vevhn4$3oii5$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4797

On 10/19/2024 12:56 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 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?
> 

 From the true premise that DDD emulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction we can correctly
deduce that HHH is correct to reject DDD as non-terminating.

This same reasoning equally applies to this more complex
(conventional halting problem proof) example.

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

ChatGPT finally understands my work well enough to directly
refute all rebuttals.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e

>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


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