XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl
Op 20.jul.2025 om 05:20 schreef olcott:
> On 7/19/2025 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/19/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/19/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> ps. learn to post more respectfully.
>>>>
>>>> You've hit the nail on the head, there. Peter Olcott doesn't show
>>>> respect here for anybody. Because of this he isn't shown any respect
>>>> back - he hasn't earned any. I don't think he understands the concept
>>>> of respect any more than he understands the concept of truth.
>>>>
>>>> If he were to show repect, he'd repect knowledge, truth, and learning,
>>>> and strive to acquire these qualities. Instead he displays contempt
>>>> for
>>>> them. This is a large part of what makes him a crank. It is
>>>> a large part of what makes it such a waste of time trying to correct
>>>> him, something that you've sensibly given up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now that chat bots have proven that they understand
>>> what I am saying I can rephrase my words to be more
>>> clear.
>>>
>>
>> They have done no such thing, because they can't
>>
>> Since yoiu feed them lies, all you have done is shown that you think
>> lies are valid logic.
>>
>>> I have been rude because I cannot interpret the
>>> rebuttal to this statement as anything besides
>>> a despicable lie for the sole purpose of sadistic
>>> pleasure of gaslighting:
>>
>> Because you are just too stupid.
>>
>> How is the "pattern" that HHH detects a non-halting pattern, when non-
>> halting is DEFINED by the behavior of the directly executed machine,
>> and the pattern you are thinking of exists in the execution of the DDD
>> that halts because it was built on the same HHH you claim is correct
>> to return 0,
>>
>> Thus, your claim *IS* just a lie, and you shows your ignorance by
>> saying you can't undetstand how it is one.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>> HHH(DDD);
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> HHH(DDD);
>>> DDD();
>>> }
>>>
>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>>> and returns 0.
>>>
>>>
>>> Every chatbot figures out on its own that HHH
>>> correctly rejects DDD as non-terminating because
>>> the input to HHH(DDD) specifies recursive simulation.
>>>
>>
>> BECAUSE YOU LIE TO THEM, and a prime training parameter is to give an
>> answer the user is apt to like, and thus will tend to just accept lies
>> and errors provided.
>>
>
> I only defined the hypothetical possibility of a simulating
> termination analyzer. This cannot possibly be a lie. They
> figured out all the rest on their own.
No you told it that a correct simulating termination analyser could be
presumed. Which is an invalid presumption, because it has been proven
that it cannot.
>
>> All you are doing is showing you don't understand how Artificiial
>> Intelegence actualy works, showing your Natural Stupidity.
>
> That they provided all of the reasoning why DDD correctly
> simulated by HHH does not halt proves that they do have
> the functional equivalent of human understanding.
The other error is the presumption that a simulation that does not reach
the end of the simulation is evidence for non-termination.
It is not. An incomplete simulation is at best an indication that other
tools are needed to determine non-halting behaviour.
>
> That everyone here denies what every first year CS student
> would understand seems to prove that they know that they
> are liars.
>
Even first year CS students understand that false presumptions lead to
false conclusions. That is the only thing the chat box shows.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
