Re: ChatGPT explains why rebuttals of my work are incorrect

On 10/15/2024 6:43 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/10/2024 23:17, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 10/13/2024 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/13/2024 11:34 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2024-10-12, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/12/2024 11:28 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 12.10.2024 11:32, Jan van den Broek wrote:

2024-10-12, Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> schrieb:

On 10/11/2024 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

>
[Schnipp]
>
As I see it, the main Halting Problem is Olcott not halting.

>
LOL! - A very nice one. Thanks for that. :-)

>
I second that. :^)

>
You're likely thousand-seconding that. The Olcott not halting joke
is many years old now, and will likely come up again.
>
>

>
My cancer has gotten worse.
>
*ChatGPT explains why rebuttals of my work are incorrect*
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
>
I had to dumb this down from the original halting problem
input so that reviewers can verify that HHH is correct
without hardly paying any attention at all:
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

[...]
>
Isn't that similar to:
>
void foobar()
{
     foobar();
}
>
? >

 Similar, but different because HHH only performs a /partial/ step by step emulation of DDD - it stops emulating after a while and returns, so DDD() halts.  foobar() will never halt (ignoring physical resource constraints like running out of stack).  foobar() undergoes infinite recursive call.  DDD() exhibits /finite/ recursive emulation, then halts.

So, any similar to:
______________
void foo(
     unsigned long ri,
     unsigned long rn
) {
     if (ri > rn) return;
     foo(ri + 1, rn);
}
______________
foo(0, 5);
?