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

On 10/21/2024 3:39 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

 

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.

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

lolwut? A decider is a normal program, and it should be handled like every
other input.
 

(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.

DDD *is* the input to HHH.
 

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

But whyyy doesn't HHH abort?
 

I already gave you the ChatGPT answer to this.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
Why don't the nested instances of HHH abort their input?
*It answered this quite well*
You can click on the link and cut-and-paste the
question to see the whole answer in compete detail.
When you ask a question and I answer it once that
question is done when you ignore the answer.
*You have always been totally wrong about this point*
Let ChatGPT set you straight. If you ask the question
again I will consider this spam. Just keep asking ChatGPT
until you get it or it admits that it made a mistake.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer