XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/23/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 6/22/25 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 6/22/2025 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 6/22/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> Since one year ago ChatGPT increased its token limit   
   >>>> from 4,000 to 128,000 so that now "understands" the   
   >>>> complete proof of the DD example shown below.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> int DD()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>     if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>       HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>     return Halt_Status;   
   >>>> }   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *This seems to be the complete HHH(DD) that includes HHH(DDD)*   
   >>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6857286e-6b48-8011-91a9-9f6e8152809f   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ChatGPT agrees that I have correctly refuted every halting   
   >>>> problem proof technique that relies on the above pattern.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Which begins with the LIE:   
   >>>   
   >>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until   
   >>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> ChatGPT does not know anything about my work besides   
   >> what I told it on those 38 pages.   
   >>   
   >> Since I am stipulating the definition of a simulating   
   >> termination analyzer and this definition is coherent   
   >> this definition cannot possibly be incorrect.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Right, so since you began with a LIE, its results are not based on FACTS.   
   >   
      
   Not at all. ChatGPT understands that a correct   
   simulation does not mean a complete simulation   
   of a non-terminating input. If you read the 38   
   pages you will see this.   
      
   > By "Stipulating" your definition, you are just declairing that you work   
   > has nothing to do with the actual Halting Problem, because your   
   > "definition" is inconsistant and based on LIE.   
   >   
      
   ChatGPT immediately recognizes that DD is the halting   
   problem proof counter-example without even being told.   
      
   > Of course it ia inconherent and incorrect, as it is based on the   
   > inproper presumption that there DOES exist a set of patterns that can   
   > correctly determine if a program will never halt.   
   >   
      
   If you knew as much as a CS grad you will be able to   
   figure out what the pattern is yourself and see that   
   it exists.   
      
   > In particular, the pattern you are trying to claim to use, is part of   
   > the Halting Program D, DD, and DDD, so it is BY DEFINITION incorrect.   
   >   
      
   If you read the 38 pages you will see how this is incorrect.   
   ChatGPT "understands" that any program that must be aborted   
   at some point to prevent its infinite execution is not a   
   halting program.   
      
   int main()   
   {   
      DD(); // calls HHH(DD) that must abort its simulation   
   {       // or the directly executed DD() will never stop running.   
      
   > Sorry, your problem is you are so stupid and brain damaged that you are   
   > believing your own lies.   
   >   
      
   *If that was true then you could convince ChatGPT of that*   
   ChatGPT analysis of HHH(DDD) only 12 pages long   
   https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2   
      
   > It seems you don't even understand the ground rules for how logic works.   
      
   Only scatterbrained nonsense believes that a non-terminating   
   input must be simulated until it terminates.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)