Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!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 17:48:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <vf6loq$136ja$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vf3eu5$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>
 <vf5vi4$10jkk$1@dont-email.me>
 <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:48:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0250fa4f333a237bb4a9bec06e6bd0e6";
	logging-data="1153642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+C34hswcfNMMs6yEwZPNHh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1ra2KTrUamW6AIyAtlraYhnnSYE=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <3db3ceb1eac447b89c8c740dbba31774eeb1ad99@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241021-4, 10/21/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5688

On 10/21/2024 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/21/24 12:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> No, someone using some REAL INTELEGENCE, as opposed to a program using 
> "artificial intelegence" that had been loaded with false premises and 
> other lies.
> 
> Sorry, you are just showing that you have NO intelegence, and are 
> depending on a program that includes a disclaimed on every page that its 
> answers may have mistakes.

I specifically asked it to verify that its key
assumption is correct and it did.

Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior
of the directly executed DDD()?

https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2

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