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: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of
 my paper
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:29:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vf5vi4$10jkk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$fbb3$2@dont-email.me>
 <6fa1774ec1e4b13035be3eab85555b609b301d69@i2pn2.org>
 <vf3os0$hqgf$1@dont-email.me>
 <de0c3b304ab574b45594ec05085c193fd687f9f7@i2pn2.org>
 <vf40l9$ja0c$3@dont-email.me>
 <3570d58cf5fea3a0a8ac8724b653d1596447d0d1@i2pn2.org>
 <vf5lln$v6n5$2@dont-email.me>
 <a9302e42f51777b34f4a7c695247ea98f0f060ad@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 18:29:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b369f0f2d7fece35c41a3b04a99b5ee3";
	logging-data="1068692"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+o69CT0DVjeOpJhaSZ0yXq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HPMSOshc6JC+s+Yy4u+YAnKVugw=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241021-4, 10/21/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <a9302e42f51777b34f4a7c695247ea98f0f060ad@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4676

On 10/21/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:41:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 10/21/2024 3:39 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> 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:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> No one ever bother to notice that (a) A decider cannot have its actual
>>>> self as its input.
>>> lolwut? A decider is a normal program, and it should be handled like
>>> every other input.
> 
>>>> (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.
>>> DDD *is* the input to HHH.
> 
>>>> The executed DDD calls HHH() and this call returns. The emulated DDD
>>>> calls HHH(DDD) and this call cannot possibly return.
>>> But whyyy doesn't HHH abort?
>> You can click on the link and cut-and-paste the question to see the
>> whole answer in compete detail.
> I am not interested in arguing with a chatbot. Make the points yourself.
> 
> 
> 1. **Nature of `DDD()`**:
>     - `DDD()` simply calls `HHH(DDD)`. It does not perform any additional
> operations that could create a loop or prevent it from returning.
>     - If `HHH` returns (whether by aborting or completing its simulation),
> `DDD()` can return to its caller.
> 
> 2. **Behavior of `HHH`**:
>     - If `HHH` is able to simulate `DDD()` and return, it should report
> that `DDD()` terminates. If `HHH` aborts due to detecting non-termination,
> it does not reflect the actual execution of `DDD()`; it leads to a
> conclusion that may not align with the true behavior.
> 
> 3. **Contradiction in Results**:
>     - If `HHH` claims that `DDD()` does not halt, but in reality, `DDD()`
> can terminate once `HHH` returns, then `HHH` is providing an incorrect
> analysis.
>     - The contradiction lies in the ability of `HHH` to detect non-
> termination theoretically while simultaneously allowing `DDD()` to halt in
> practical execution.
> 
> ### Conclusion:
> Given the nature of `DDD()` and how `HHH` operates, it becomes clear that
> `HHH` cannot consistently provide a correct answer about whether `DDD()`
> halts. The dynamics of calling and returning create a scenario where the
> outcomes conflict. Thus, `HHH` is fundamentally flawed in its role as a
> termination analyzer for functions like `DDD()`.

Did ChatGPT generate that?
If it did then I need *ALL the input that caused it to generate that*

https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
If you did not start with the basis of this link then you cheated.

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