Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 7/20/2025 2:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Errors have been detected in the input for the chat-box and pointed out to you.Op 19.jul.2025 om 21:19 schreef olcott:That would be a detectable error.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.
There is no detectable error in the above link
pertaining to the correct return value of HHH(DDD).
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.