Re: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of my paper

On 10/20/24 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/20/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/20/24 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/20/2024 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/20/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:

This is the only new material that sums up the
essence of what a simulating termination analyzer is.
>
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.

>
But for the pattern that it detects to be correct, it must be that all input that exhibit that pattern must never halt when run.
>

>
If your try to get away with telling ChatGPT that it
will explain your error in great detail as it already
does when I brought that up.
>
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
>

>
Righr, you LIED tl Chat GPT about it, and being an AI, it is dumb enough to believe it.
>

 If that was true then you could convince it that it is wrong.

I did.
It admitted that DDD halts and HHH was wrong to say so.
You are just proving that you are nothing but a stupid liar.

 

Note, I DID tell that to Chat GPT, and it agrees that DDD, when the criteria is what does DDD actually do, which is what the question MUST be about to be about the Termination or Halting problem, then DDD WILL HALT since HHH(DDD) will return 0 to it.
>
So, your claims are just proven to be lies.

 No one ever bother to notice that
(a) A decider cannot have its actual self as its input.

Well, no program takes a program as an input, only a representation of the program.
And once you try to change that to
(a1) A decidee cannot have a representation of its actual self as its input
That is just a false statement.
Why can't you give a decider the representation of itself as an input?

 When a simulating halt decider has its own TM description
as its input the behavior of its directly executed self
can vary from the behavior of its correctly simulated self
as proven concretely below.

Nope.
How does the behavior differ?
What instruction correctly simulated differed from that same instruction actually executed?
Your failure to answer just shows that you know you are lying.

 (b) In the case of the pathological input DDD to emulating
termination analyzer HHH the behavior of the directly
executed DDD (not an input to HHH) is different than the
behavior of DDD that is an input to HHH.
 

But if the input doesn't represent the DDD, then you lied about the problem you were working on.
Sorry, you are just proving that everything you have said is based on lies.
The DEFINITION of Halt Deciders and Termination Analyzers are that they are given a repreentation/description of the program they are to anaylyze. If the input to HHH isn't that for DDD, then why have you wasted the last two decades saying that you have been working on the problem that you haven't been doing?

The executed DDD calls HHH() and this call returns. The
emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD) and this call cannot possibly
return.
 

Of course it can return, just not in the partial emulation that HHH does.
Since that can't be a correct emulation that determines final behavior, the fact that the emulation doens't return is irrelevent. The actual correct and complete emulation of that input does return, so the input represents a terminating program, and thus HHH should have returned 1.
You just are proving you don't even understand the most basic terms of the field, and just misuse them and try to replace them with LIES.