XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:18 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/20/2025 2:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > That would be a detectable error.   
   >   
   > There is no detectable error in the above link   
   > pertaining to the correct return value of HHH(DDD).   
   >   
      
   Errors have been detected in the input for the chat-box and pointed out   
   to you.   
   E.g., that ' HHH simulates its input until it detects a non-terminating   
   behaviour pattern' contradicts 'When HHH detects such a pattern it   
   aborts its simulation and returns 0'.   
   When HHH aborts, the simulated HHH does as well, so the case that the   
   such a HHH would correctly detect non-termination does not exists.   
      
   When feeding a chatbox with contradicting input, it is no surprise to   
   see invalid conclusion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)