Re: Four Chatbots figure out on their own without prompting that HHH(DDD)==0

On 7/20/2025 2:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 19.jul.2025 om 21:19 schreef olcott:

On 7/19/2025 12:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/19/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
>

That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
DDD past the call to HHH. You just draw the wrong conclusion from it.
(Aside: what "seems" to you will convince no one. You can just call
everybody dishonest. Also, they are not "your reviewers".)
>

>
For the purposes of this discussion this is the
100% complete definition of HHH. It is the exact
same one that I give to all the chat bots.
>
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.

>
So, the only HHH that meets your definition is the HHH that never detects the pattern and aborts, and thus never returns.
>

>
All of the Chat bots conclude that HHH(DDD) is correct
to reject its input as non-halting because this input
specified recursive simulation. They figure this out
on their own without any prompting.
>
https://chatgpt.com/share/687aa4c2-b814-8011-9e7d-b85c03b291eb
>

 I just read a news item where an AI told that bread with shit is a nice desert. So, we know what a proof by AI means.

That would be a detectable error.
There is no detectable error in the above link
pertaining to the correct return value of HHH(DDD).
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer