Re: ChatGPT correctly analyzed the first page of my paper:

On 10/2/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/1/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/1/2024 2:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/1/2024 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:

>

Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D

>
[ .... ]
>

>
https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
>

>

The above link to a ChatGPT conversation is entirely
complete with the first part being the entire input
provided to ChatGPT. The second part is the output that
ChatGPT deriving from analyzing this input.

>
You are aware that programs like ChatGPT are know for "hallucinating"
non-facts?  They have even less understanding of the truth than you do.
>
In fact, they tend to regurgitate whatever "facts" they are fed with.

>
In other words you can convince it that its analysis
of my work is incorrect. I dare you to try to do that.

 That's simple. D Halts (since the H it calls returns) so H(D) saying it doesn't is just wrong.
 Your arguements that try to justify a wrong answer are all based on trying to change definitions, proving you are just a liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
 The fact you refuse to actually even TRY to refute that claim just shows you KNOW you are wrong.
 Sorry, that *IS* the facts.

*Try this yourself*
https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
Does HHH have to abort its emulation of DDD to prevent the infinite execution of DDD?
You know that unless HHH aborts its emulation of DDD that
neither HHH nor DDD will ever terminate normally.
Your weasel words can fool the less intelligent people here.
They cannot fool ChatGPT. Try to fool ChatGPT with your weasel words.