Sujet : Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. Oct 2024, 07:30:41
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <bb5c503ba7e505b1901ff9e45f2881dd4d9a2853@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:23:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/15/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote:
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?
There is some code that was obsolete several years ago.
No, that code is still active. it is the source of the value for the
variable Root that is passed around, and is checked in the code to
alter the behavior.
It has no effect on the trace itself.
Other than producing a different trace. Seriously, why else should it
be in there?
It only affects the termination status decision that I conclusively
prove is unequivocally correct no matter how HHH detects this.
Sure, "DDD is the same program, except for a variable which directly
changes termination" lol.
-- 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.
…