Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:55:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:26:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/16/2024 1:30 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:23:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/15/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/15/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:11:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:

It explains in great detail that another different DDD (same
machine code different process context) seems to terminate
only because the recursive emulation that it specifies has
been aborted at its second recursive call.

Yes! It really has different code, by way of the static Root
variable.
No wonder it behaves differently.

There are no static root variables. There never has been any
"not a pure function of its inputs" aspect to emulation.

Oh, did you take out the check if HHH is the root simulator?

There is some code that was obsolete several years ago.

No, that code is still active. it is the source of the value for
the variable Root that is passed around, and is checked in the code
to alter the behavior.

It has no effect on the trace itself.

Other than producing a different trace. Seriously, why else should it
be in there?

The whole purpose of the root variable to for storing and examining
the trace. It has nothing to do with the actual x86 emulation.

Nope. It is a flag for checking if we are in the outermost simulator.

This has no effect on the sequence of correctly emulated steps.
It only has an effect of the length of this sequence.

Two sequences of different lengths are not the same, even though they
may be the same up to the penultimate instruction, which must be a
return in the shorter one, while the longer continues.

At the time that HHH aborts its emulation there is already complete
proof that it was required to abort this sequence to prevent its own
non-termination.

The fact that it aborts changes the answer, by virtue of the recursive
simulation.

We are only quibbling over whether or not it saw this complete proof in
the proper way.

No, it does not give the right answer.

It only affects the termination status decision that I conclusively
prove is unequivocally correct no matter how HHH detects this.

Sure, "DDD is the same program, except for a variable which directly
changes termination" lol.

Without the root variable the trace would be the exact same trace
(except not terminate) thus the root variable has no effect
what-so-ever on the claim that I have been consistently making for
several weeks.

Exactly! It is only for changing the answer HHH gives about DDD.

That changes the whole trace except for the first few instructions.

It does not change any aspect of the trace until the trace conclusively
proves that DDD cannot possibly ever reach its own "return" instruction
no matter what HHH does.

It changes the trace of HHH to abort simulating.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.