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

On 10/23/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/23/2024 1:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:30:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/22/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:08:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/20/2024 10:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/20/24 6:42 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

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
>

Righr, you LIED tl Chat GPT about it, and being an AI, it is dumb
enough to believe it.
>
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.
>
So, your claims are just proven to be lies.

>
Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the
directly executed DDD()?

>
Since you keep on LYING about what "terminating behavior" is, of
course you keep getting the wrong answers.
>

I only gave it less than the same half page of basis and it explained
the details of your error very well when it answered the above
question:
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

>
>
You said:
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
int main()
{
    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
    HHH(DDD);
    DDD(DDD);
}
Do the function calls from main() return to main() ?
>

That is how you cheated.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e *Here is
what I actually said*

>
Yeah, we know you mangle quotes.

 When a quote is less than 100% precisely correct I call it you.
Most of the rebuttal of my work are the strawman deception of
rebutting an incorrect paraphrase of what I am saying.
 Because you did not provide the input that derived the output
you made your result unable to be reproduced. Unless and until
I can reproduce your result I must assume that it is somehow
erroneous. I tried and tried to get that result and every time
ChatGPT 4 found an error in every rebuttal of my work.
 

Sorry if I actually didn't paste the
whole thing yet another time. You do realise your link doesn't allow
changing the previous input? Even so, it don't see how that would
constitute "cheating", if ChatGPT supposedly "knows the truth".
>

 

And when your logic isn't preciesely correct, but based on INCORRECT definitions, we call you on it, and you just whine and complain that we are being unfair and not letting you change the rules.
Sorry, but all youi are talking about is Olcott's theory of POOP, and that dirty diaper is all it is worth.