XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That everyone here denies what every first year CS student   
   would understand seems to prove that they know that they   
   are liars.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)