XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/24/2025 3:08 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   > 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? ;^)   
   >   
      
   HHH is too smart to do this for all inputs that are   
   in its domain.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)