On 16/10/2025 22:07, Alan Mackenzie wrote:*I now have the spec perfected for LLMs and humans*olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:To be fair to the LLMs, they're only parroting what he tells them to parrot. If you ask one neutrally about HHH, it'll wobble a bit because of the expression "correctly simulates" before deducing that HHH is not what Olcott claims for it:
>
[ .... ]
>Basically everyone that disagrees with me is>
disagreeing with verified facts and they
simply refuse to look at the verification.
That is a barefaced lie. You have never dealt in verified facts. You
have continually called what you would like to be true a "verified fact".
When challenged to cite a name, date and source for such verification you
have never come up with one.
>
There is no verification to look at. The output of LLMs is not
verification, particularly as they were likely trained largely on the
contents of comp.theory over the last 20 years. They're just echoing
back the falsehoods you've unwittingly fed them with.
<Input to LLM systems>
Please think this all the way through without making any guesses
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and return 0.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
(c) If HHH must abort its simulation to prevent its own non-termination
then HHH is correct to abort this simulation and return 0.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
</Input to LLM systems>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.