XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 19.jul.2025 om 21:19 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/19/2025 12:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 7/19/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that HHH cannot simulate   
   >>>> DDD past the call to HHH. You just draw the wrong conclusion from it.   
   >>>> (Aside: what "seems" to you will convince no one. You can just call   
   >>>> everybody dishonest. Also, they are not "your reviewers".)   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> For the purposes of this discussion this is the   
   >>> 100% complete definition of HHH. It is the exact   
   >>> same one that I give to all the chat bots.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> So, the only HHH that meets your definition is the HHH that never   
   >> detects the pattern and aborts, and thus never returns.   
   >>   
   >   
   > All of the Chat bots conclude that HHH(DDD) is correct   
   > to reject its input as non-halting because this input   
   > specified recursive simulation. They figure this out   
   > on their own without any prompting.   
   >   
   > https://chatgpt.com/share/687aa4c2-b814-8011-9e7d-b85c03b291eb   
   >   
      
   I just read a news item where an AI told that bread with shit is a nice   
   desert. So, we know what a proof by AI means.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)