Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

On 10/15/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

Yes it does.
Your full trace of the emulation of DDD by HHH shows that HHH emulates itself making a decision based on the value of that flag.

 It only effects the termination status decision
that I conclusively prove is unequivocally correct
no matter how HHH detects this.

Nope, just prove that you logic is based on lying,

 Every HHH that returns 0 correctly reports that DDD
emulated by HHH cannot possible reach its own return
instruction EVEN IF HHH DOES THIS BY WILD GUESS.

But the DDD does reach the final return statement, just not in the emulation done by HHH.
An aborted emulation can't be used by itself of evidence of non-termination, so you are just showing that you are insisting on using equivocation to assert your incorrect answer.

 Of every HHH that returns anything at all, the
ones that return 0 are necessarily correct.
 

Nope, not if they are to be termination analysers by the industry standard definitions, as their input will halt.
Thus, you are just showing that your whole argument is based on lies and deception.