Re: What I told ChatGPT is essentially identical to the first page of my paper

On 10/21/24 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/21/2024 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/21/24 12:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/21/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:41:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/21/2024 3:39 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/20/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/20/24 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/20/2024 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/20/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:

>

Note, I DID tell that to Chat GPT, and it agrees that DDD, when the
criteria is what does DDD actually do, which is what the question
MUST be about to be about the Termination or Halting problem, then
DDD WILL HALT since HHH(DDD) will return 0 to it.

No one ever bother to notice that (a) A decider cannot have its actual
self as its input.

lolwut? A decider is a normal program, and it should be handled like
every other input.

>

(b) In the case of the pathological input DDD to emulating termination
analyzer HHH the behavior of the directly executed DDD (not an input
to HHH) is different than the behavior of DDD that is an input to HHH.

DDD *is* the input to HHH.

>

The executed DDD calls HHH() and this call returns. The emulated DDD
calls HHH(DDD) and this call cannot possibly return.

But whyyy doesn't HHH abort?

You can click on the link and cut-and-paste the question to see the
whole answer in compete detail.

I am not interested in arguing with a chatbot. Make the points yourself.
>
>
1. **Nature of `DDD()`**:
    - `DDD()` simply calls `HHH(DDD)`. It does not perform any additional
operations that could create a loop or prevent it from returning.
    - If `HHH` returns (whether by aborting or completing its simulation),
`DDD()` can return to its caller.
>
2. **Behavior of `HHH`**:
    - If `HHH` is able to simulate `DDD()` and return, it should report
that `DDD()` terminates. If `HHH` aborts due to detecting non- termination,
it does not reflect the actual execution of `DDD()`; it leads to a
conclusion that may not align with the true behavior.
>
3. **Contradiction in Results**:
    - If `HHH` claims that `DDD()` does not halt, but in reality, `DDD()`
can terminate once `HHH` returns, then `HHH` is providing an incorrect
analysis.
    - The contradiction lies in the ability of `HHH` to detect non-
termination theoretically while simultaneously allowing `DDD()` to halt in
practical execution.
>
### Conclusion:
Given the nature of `DDD()` and how `HHH` operates, it becomes clear that
`HHH` cannot consistently provide a correct answer about whether `DDD()`
halts. The dynamics of calling and returning create a scenario where the
outcomes conflict. Thus, `HHH` is fundamentally flawed in its role as a
termination analyzer for functions like `DDD()`.

>
Did ChatGPT generate that?
If it did then I need *ALL the input that caused it to generate that*
>
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
If you did not start with the basis of this link then you cheated.
>

No, someone using some REAL INTELEGENCE, as opposed to a program using "artificial intelegence" that had been loaded with false premises and other lies.
>
Sorry, you are just showing that you have NO intelegence, and are depending on a program that includes a disclaimed on every page that its answers may have mistakes.

 I specifically asked it to verify that its key
assumption is correct and it did.

No, it said that given what you told it (which was a lie) the results were correct. Arguememnts, even if valid, that are based on incorrect premises don't prove anything.

 Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior
of the directly executed DDD()?
 https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
 

Which is only correct if your misdefine what that that means.
Sorry, getting an AI to beleive your lies does NOT prove your statements are correct, only that you just totally don't understand how logic works.
You are showing that you are nothing but an ignorant patholgical lying idiot.