Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

On 10/16/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:26:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 1:30 AM, joes wrote:

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?

The whole purpose of the root variable to for storing and examining the
trace. It has nothing to do with the actual x86 emulation.

Nope. It is a flag for checking if we are in the outermost simulator.
 

This has no effect on the sequence of correctly emulated steps.
It only has an effect of the length of this sequence.
At the time that HHH aborts its emulation there is already
complete proof that it was required to abort this sequence
to prevent its own non-termination.
We are only quibbling over whether or not it saw this complete
proof in the proper way. That the proof exists is conclusively
proven to anyone having sufficient software engineering skill.

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.

Without the root variable the trace would be the exact same trace
(except not terminate) thus the root variable has no effect what-so-ever
on the claim that I have been consistently making for several weeks.

Exactly! It is only for changing the answer HHH gives about DDD.

It has been completely proven that HHH does report correctly.
We are only quibbling over the way that HHH determined this
correct report.

That
changes the whole trace except for the first few instructions.

It does not change any aspect of the trace until the
trace conclusively proves that DDD cannot possibly ever
reach its own "return" instruction no matter what HHH does.
We have only ever been quibbling over how HHH sees this.

What was
your claim again?
 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then
each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer