Re: I am using AI because...

On 6/10/25 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:19 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 08 Jun 2025 18:31:36 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>

This halting problem "debate" isn't going to be resolved as both "sides"
are deeply entrenched and will not back down or attempt to meet in the
middle, most of the vitriol consists of ad hominems mostly from Damon
and Olcott.
For this reason I can no longer be arsed expending any effort
contributing myself so I will let AI (whose responses I do review) do so
instead.

>
I don't think anybody wants your AI posts. Please stop them.
>

>
*ChatGPT Analyzes Simulating Termination Analyzer*
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer
>
The advantage of AI posts is that they lack biases.
>

>
Who says that AI has no bias?
>
WHen the input prompt includes lies (like you have shown yours to), the answer is unreliable.

>
Yet you do not dare try and find even a single
mistake because you know that you are totally out-gunned.
>

>
Really? Then why how was I able to get your own AI prompt to admit that it was in error when you got it to say you were correct?
>

 You never did this.

Sure I did, You willing to put a a million dollars that I didn't?

You have repeatedly stated that a simulation
was incorrect because a non-terminating input
was not completely simulated. You were not
even aware that no complete simulation exists
for non-terminating inputs.

No, "Complete" simulations of non-terminating inputs exist, they are just infinite in length, and thus can't be "listed" or "enumerated".
Lots of things exist in that manner. Things like the Natural Numbers, or the Real Numbers.

 

Why have I been able to point to hundereds of detailed errors, NONE of which have you pointed out an problem in my statement based on something factual or sourced from something reliable (only your own claims)
>

 You have never pointed out any errors.
Each time it was always only your own mistake.

Sure I have, again, want to put up a million dollars, that I can't show you a time I pointed out an error or yours?

 Try and show me your best shot at pointing out
any mistake and I will show you where you are wrong.

How about the fact that since you have stipulated that HHH and DDD are not programs, but DDD only includes the code of the C function DDD, that it is impossible to correctly simulate "DDD" (the input) per the definitons of the x86 language past the call HHH instructions.
A few points to make sure you take into account in your "rebuttal"
Since "the input" is defined to a specific set of byte codes" the use of anything outside that set of byte codes is no longer simulating "the input"
The DEFINITION of every x86 instuctions, other than halts, includes, as part of its definition, as part of the general definition of the processor, if not explicitly in the instruction (as done for jump and calls) that the next instruction WILL be executed at the location pointed to by the PC counter.
Go ahead, show how you can correctly simulate that call instruction when the data needed to complete it (by simulating the next instruction) isn't available.

 

You concept of proof is to make broad unsubstantiated claims, that are divorced from the factual definitions of the system.
>

 My concept of proof is self-evidence.

Which isn't proof, and thus you admit you can't prove things.
Just because it seems evident to YOU, doesn't make it true.

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

Which isn't a property of Formal Logic.

 This does not work when people are simply too dumb
to understand.

No, it doesn't work in system where "meaning" comes STRICTLY by the axiomization of the system. The only thing "self-evident" "by meaning" ARE the axioms, everything else is "by proof"
All you are doing is showing you don't even understand the broad field you are talking about.

 

That is why you make only vague references to sources, and then need to paraphrase them, as you don't know what the sources actually mean.
>

 That you could not understand what I said does
not indicate that I made any mistake.

Sure it does, a source not cited isn't a source. Saying "any competent programmer knows" isn't citing a source, it is just hearsay.

 

sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
>
It feels bad getting into a battle of wits with you, since you are just unarmed.
>
>