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

On 10/20/24 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/20/2024 4:00 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:23:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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

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

This is the only new material that sums up the essence of what a
simulating termination analyzer is.
>
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.

But for the pattern that it detects to be correct, it must be that all
input that exhibit that pattern must never halt when run.

If your try to get away with telling ChatGPT that it will explain your
error in great detail as it already does when I brought that up.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e

Why don't the nested HHHs abort?
>

 Why don't the nested instances of HHH abort their input?
*It answered this quite well*

No, you don't, you LIE about it becuase you don't know what a program is
Thing can only work the way you describe if DDD isn't considered to contain all the code it uses, which means the question about its behavior is just undefined.
Sorry, you are just proving how ignorant you are of what you are talking about.

 When cut-and-pasted it has very bad formatting.
 You can click on the link and cut-and-paste the
question to see the whole answer in compete detail.
  From this answer that it provides you can give it
follow up questions. It really understands my work
quite well.
  From what I understand the overall reasoning of ChatGPT
was not very good until it learned about programming.
Then it became very good at many more things.
 

Also what is DDD(DDD)? It doesn't take a parameter.

 I noticed that earlier today and was going to rerun the
whole analysis to get rid of it. Here is what ChatGPT
said about this:
 Conclusion:
The invalid DDD(DDD) call was a syntactic error, and correcting it (by
removing the argument) doesn't alter the core analysis of the halting
behavior. The key points about how HHH detects non-termination in DDD()
and how DDD() halts when executed due to HHH's intervention still hold
true. So, the overall conclusions regarding halting and non-halting
behavior are unaffected.