Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:11:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 7:06 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:49:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e When
you click on the link and try to explain how HHH must be wrong when
it reports that DDD does not terminate because DDD does terminate it
will explain your mistake to you.

I did that, and it admitted that DDD halts, it just tries to justify
why a wrong answer must be right.

It explains in great detail that another different DDD (same machine
code different process context) seems to terminate only because the
recursive emulation that it specifies has been aborted at its second
recursive call.

Yes! It really has different code, by way of the static Root variable.
No wonder it behaves differently.

There are no static root variables. There never has been any "not a pure
function of its inputs" aspect to emulation.

Oh, did you take out the check if HHH is the root simulator?

Every termination analyzer that emulates itself emulating its input has
always been a pure function of this input up to the point where
emulation stops.

That point can never come in the complete simulation of a non-
terminating input, because it is infinite.

You err because you fail to understand how the same C/x86 function
invoked in a different process context can have different behavior.

Do explain how a pure function can change.

Non-terminating C functions do not ever return, thus cannot possibly be
pure functions.

By "pure" I mean having no side effects. You mean total vs. partial.

HHH is a pure function of its input the whole time that it is emulating.
DDD has no inputs and is allowed to be any finite string of x86 code.
Inputs to HHH are by no means required to ever return AT ALL.

I thought DDD was fixed to only call HHH(DDD)?

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.