Re: Four Chatbots figure out on their own without prompting that HHH(DDD)==0

On 7/19/2025 2:29 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 14:19 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 12:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/19/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
>

That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
DDD past the call to HHH. You just draw the wrong conclusion from it.
(Aside: what "seems" to you will convince no one. You can just call
everybody dishonest. Also, they are not "your reviewers".)
>

>
For the purposes of this discussion this is the
100% complete definition of HHH. It is the exact
same one that I give to all the chat bots.
>
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.

>
So, the only HHH that meets your definition is the HHH that never
detects the pattern and aborts, and thus never returns.
>

>
All of the Chat bots conclude that HHH(DDD) is correct
to reject its input as non-halting because this input
specified recursive simulation. They figure this out
on their own without any prompting.
>
https://chatgpt.com/share/687aa4c2-b814-8011-9e7d-b85c03b291eb

 It is still nothing to do with the Halting Problem proof (Because it is POOH)
 

It is a key element of my refutation of this proof
because HHH also correctly determines that HHH(DD)==0.
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly ever
reach past its first statement because it specifies
recursive simulation.
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer