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

On 7/20/25 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:

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).
 

Sure there is, you just don;t accept it because you are just a pathological liar.
The problem is that NOTHING an AI says can be trusted to be "true" becuase it says so, because the LLM algorithm doesn't even claim to be truth perserving.
That is why they have a disclaimer at the end of the output.
But, that doesn't matter to pathological liars like you.