Re: ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok and Claude all agree the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-terminating behavior

On 6/27/25 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/27/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/27/25 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/27/2025 2:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/27/25 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/27/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/27/25 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:>>

Turing Machines can and do compute mappings from finite
string inputs.

>
Right, and those finite strings can be representation of other abstract things, like programs or numbers.
>

>
>
*ChatGPT, Gemini and Grok all agree*
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>
https://chatgpt.com/share/685ed9e3-260c-8011-91d0-4dee3ee08f46
https://gemini.google.com/app/f2527954a959bce4
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_b750d0f1-9996-4394-b0e4- f76f6c77df3d
>
>

>
In other words, you ars admitting to accepting the LIES of a LLM because you have lied to them, over the reasoned proofs of people.
>

>
<begin text input>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}
>
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.
<end text input>
>
The above is *all* that I told them.
The above paragraph merely defines what a simulating
termination analyzer is and how it works, thus cannot
be a lie.
>
*ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok and Claude all agree*
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>
https://chatgpt.com/share/685ed9e3-260c-8011-91d0-4dee3ee08f46
https://gemini.google.com/app/f2527954a959bce4
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_b750d0f1-9996-4394-b0e4- f76f6c77df3d
https://claude.ai/share/c2bd913d-7bd1-4741-a919-f0acc040494b
>

>
>
Perhaps I should point you to this too:
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ffs9s3DTc
>
>
IT shows why LLM are not good at this field.

 Maybe ALL that you have is empty rhetoric entirely
bereft of any supporting reasoning.
 It is stupidly simple that DDD correctly simulated by
HHH cannot possible reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.
 If you even know what ordinary recursion is you would
know this. That is why I called my reviewers despicable
lying bastards.
 

But the problem is that the HHH that does a correct simulation doesn't answer, and is looking at a different input then the HHH that does answer.
That is EXACTLY like you question about arresting John because you found that his twin brother Jack robbed the bank.
The DDD that calls the HHH that answers is NOT guilt on being non-halting and is a DIFFERENT program than the DDD that is non-halting because it calls the HHH that does the correct simulation.
Your attempts to call them the same input is just a LIE that you have admitted to the facts that prove it to be a lie, and you continued claim of it just proves that you either you are too stupid to understand these basics, or too corrupt to care that you are just lying.
Sorry, but those are the facts, and you have accepted them by your refusal to even attempt to make of logical argument against them, but just make the fallacious restatement of the error. All that does is admit you have nothing to show your possition to have any validity, and tha that you just don't care about what is true.