Path: ...!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: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of
 my paper
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <vf40l9$ja0c$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
 <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org>
 <vf3os0$hqgf$1@dont-email.me>
 <de0c3b304ab574b45594ec05085c193fd687f9f7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:36:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b369f0f2d7fece35c41a3b04a99b5ee3";
	logging-data="632844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nj44jyaswCeNsabKmpWC5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P4qwgMImmgs14CKWOfbdg8/MXFU=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241020-4, 10/20/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <de0c3b304ab574b45594ec05085c193fd687f9f7@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 3396

On 10/20/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/20/24 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2024 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/20/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> This is the only new material that sums up the
>>>> essence of what a simulating termination analyzer is.
>>>>
>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>>>> and returns 0.
>>>
>>> But for the pattern that it detects to be correct, it must be that 
>>> all input that exhibit that pattern must never halt when run.
>>>
>>
>> If your try to get away with telling ChatGPT that it
>> will explain your error in great detail as it already
>> does when I brought that up.
>>
>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
>>
> 
> Righr, you LIED tl Chat GPT about it, and being an AI, it is dumb enough 
> to believe it.
> 

If that was true then you could convince it that it is wrong.

> Note, I DID tell that to Chat GPT, and it agrees that DDD, when the 
> criteria is what does DDD actually do, which is what the question MUST 
> be about to be about the Termination or Halting problem, then DDD WILL 
> HALT since HHH(DDD) will return 0 to it.
> 
> So, your claims are just proven to be lies.

No one ever bother to notice that
(a) A decider cannot have its actual self as its input.

When a simulating halt decider has its own TM description
as its input the behavior of its directly executed self
can vary from the behavior of its correctly simulated self
as proven concretely below.

(b) In the case of the pathological input DDD to emulating
termination analyzer HHH the behavior of the directly
executed DDD (not an input to HHH) is different than the
behavior of DDD that is an input to HHH.

The executed DDD calls HHH() and this call returns. The
emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD) and this call cannot possibly
return.

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