Re: I am using AI because... ---DISHONESTY

On 6/12/2025 9:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/10/25 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/10/25 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:19 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 08 Jun 2025 18:31:36 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>

This halting problem "debate" isn't going to be resolved as both "sides"
are deeply entrenched and will not back down or attempt to meet in the
middle, most of the vitriol consists of ad hominems mostly from Damon
and Olcott.
For this reason I can no longer be arsed expending any effort
contributing myself so I will let AI (whose responses I do review) do so
instead.

>
I don't think anybody wants your AI posts. Please stop them.
>

>
*ChatGPT Analyzes Simulating Termination Analyzer*
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer
>
The advantage of AI posts is that they lack biases.
>

>
Who says that AI has no bias?
>
WHen the input prompt includes lies (like you have shown yours to), the answer is unreliable.

>
Yet you do not dare try and find even a single
mistake because you know that you are totally out-gunned.
>

>
Really? Then why how was I able to get your own AI prompt to admit that it was in error when you got it to say you were correct?
>

>
You never did this.

>
Sure I did, You willing to put a a million dollars that I didn't?
>

You have repeatedly stated that a simulation
was incorrect because a non-terminating input
was not completely simulated. You were not
even aware that no complete simulation exists
for non-terminating inputs.

>
No, "Complete" simulations of non-terminating inputs exist, they are just infinite in length, and thus can't be "listed" or "enumerated".
>
Lots of things exist in that manner. Things like the Natural Numbers, or the Real Numbers.
>

>

Why have I been able to point to hundereds of detailed errors, NONE of which have you pointed out an problem in my statement based on something factual or sourced from something reliable (only your own claims)
>

>
You have never pointed out any errors.
Each time it was always only your own mistake.

>
Sure I have, again, want to put up a million dollars, that I can't show you a time I pointed out an error or yours?
>

>
Try and show me your best shot at pointing out
any mistake and I will show you where you are wrong.

>
How about the fact that since you have stipulated that HHH and DDD are not programs, but DDD only includes the code of the C function DDD, that it is impossible to correctly simulate "DDD" (the input) per the definitons of the x86 language past the call HHH instructions.
>
A few points to make sure you take into account in your "rebuttal"
>
Since "the input" is defined to a specific set of byte codes" the use of anything outside that set of byte codes is no longer simulating "the input"
>
The DEFINITION of every x86 instuctions, other than halts, includes, as part of its definition, as part of the general definition of the processor, if not explicitly in the instruction (as done for jump and calls) that the next instruction WILL be executed at the location pointed to by the PC counter.
>
>
Go ahead, show how you can correctly simulate that call instruction when the data needed to complete it (by simulating the next instruction) isn't available.

 It has now been more than a day, where you have responded to numerous other messages.
 

I mostly ignore most of your messages because you
have proven to be dishonest. The main way that you
have proven to be dishonest is that most of your
rebuttals change the words that I said and then
rebuts these changed words.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer