XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 26.jul.2025 om 20:46 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/26/2025 1:11 PM, joes wrote:   
   >> Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:48:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>> On 7/26/2025 3:05 AM, joes wrote:   
   >>>> Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:02:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>>> On 7/25/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:   
   >>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 11:32:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>   
   >>>>>> Oh, really now? I thought it referred to its simulator HHH by name.   
   >>>>> The actual code has always been based on an x86 emulator that emulates   
   >>>>> finite strings of x86 machine code bytes.   
   >>>> But does DDD call whatever is behind the name "HHH" or does it call the   
   >>>> fixed code that aborts just before the second recursive call? Because   
   >>>> DDD calling a modified HHH' is a different program.   
   >>> When HHH emulates DDD then DDD calls HHH(DDD) based on whatever code is   
   >>> at machine address 000015d2.   
   >> Ok, so modifying HHH to simulate further also changes the input DDD,   
   >> because it calls the same address. Gotcha.   
   >>   
   >>>>> For three years everyone here acts like it is impossible for them to   
   >>>>> understand that the correct emulation of an input that calls its own   
   >>>>> emulator HHH(DDD) can possibly be different than the emulation of the   
   >>>>> same input that does not call its own emulator HHH1(DDD).   
   >>>> It is not impossible to understand. It is wrong.   
   >>> Since the execution trace conclusively proves that it is correct your   
   >>> mere intuition to the contrary is proven to be incorrect.   
   >> The trace only shows it is different. It remains to be shown that the   
   >> abort was correct.   
   >>   
   >>>> If we prefix all programs we pass to HHH with DDD, they should not be   
   >>>> aborted as if the were the same.   
   >>>> If HHH were a correct simulator, it would produce the same behaviour as   
   >>>> an UTM. (HHH1 is the same as HHH, right?)   
   >> Right?   
   >>   
   >   
   > All of the chatbots figure out that I am correct   
   > on their own. I only give them this input:   
   >   
   > typedef void (*ptr)();   
   > int HHH(ptr P);   
   >   
   > void DDD()   
   > {   
   >    HHH(DDD);   
   >    return;   
   > }   
   >   
   >   
   > int main()   
   > {   
   >    HHH(DDD);   
   >    DDD();   
   > }   
   >   
   > Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:   
   > (a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts its   
   > simulation and returns 0,   
   > (b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then it   
   > returns 1.   
      
   These cache-boxes are fed with invalid and contradictory information:   
   (a) No non-termination pattern can be detected when it aborts and   
   return, because the simulated HHH is also programmed to abort and return.   
   Still claiming that it sees non-termination, is both incorrect and   
   contradictory.   
      
   >   
   > Then they figure out all the other details on their own.   
   >   
   > https://chatgpt.com/share/688521d8-e5fc-8011-9d7c-0d77ac83706c   
   Going from invalid and contradictory information, any conclusion can be   
   figured out, even incorrect ones.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)