XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/24/2025 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 6/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 6/23/25 9:38 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Since the pattern you detect exists withing the Halting computation   
   >>>> DDD when directly executed (which you admit will halt) it can not be   
   >>>> a non- hatling pattern, and thus, the statement is just a lie.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sorry, you are just proving that you basic nature is to be a liar.   
   >>>   
   >>> *Corrects that error that you just made on its last line*   
   >>>   
   >>> It would not be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the   
   >>> directly executed DDD(), because that behavior is altered by HHH's   
   >>> own intervention. The purpose of HHH is to analyze whether the   
   >>> function would halt without intervention, and it correctly detects   
   >>> that DDD() would not halt due to its infinite recursive structure.   
   >>> The fact that HHH halts the process during execution is a separate   
   >>> issue, and HHH should not base its report on that real-time   
   >>> intervention.   
   >>>   
   >>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Why wouldn't it be? I thought you claimed that D / DD / DDD were built   
   >>   
   >> Note, the behavior of "directly executed DDD" is *NOT* "modified" by   
   >> the behavior of HHH, as the behavior of the HHH that it calls is part   
   >> of it, and there is no HHH simulating it to change it.   
   >>   
   >   
   > *ChatGPT and I agree that*   
   > The directly executed DDD() is merely the first step of   
   > otherwise infinitely recursive emulation that is terminated   
   > at its second step.   
      
   Can blowing the stack be considered a halt decider as well? ;^)   
      
   >   
   > Feel free to directly argue against this conclusion with ChatGPT   
   > this is a live link:   
   > https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2   
   >   
   > If ChatGPT is merely a yes man it should be very easy to   
   > convince it that you are correct.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)