Re: ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok and Claude all agree the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-terminating behavior

On 6/27/25 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/27/2025 2:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/27/25 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/27/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/27/25 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:>>

Turing Machines can and do compute mappings from finite
string inputs.

>
Right, and those finite strings can be representation of other abstract things, like programs or numbers.
>

>
>
*ChatGPT, Gemini and Grok all agree*
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>
https://chatgpt.com/share/685ed9e3-260c-8011-91d0-4dee3ee08f46
https://gemini.google.com/app/f2527954a959bce4
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_b750d0f1-9996-4394-b0e4- f76f6c77df3d
>
>

>
In other words, you ars admitting to accepting the LIES of a LLM because you have lied to them, over the reasoned proofs of people.
>

 <begin text input>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
  void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}
 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.
<end text input>
 The above is *all* that I told them.
The above paragraph merely defines what a simulating
termination analyzer is and how it works, thus cannot
be a lie.
 *ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok and Claude all agree*
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its simulated "return" statement final halt state.
 https://chatgpt.com/share/685ed9e3-260c-8011-91d0-4dee3ee08f46
https://gemini.google.com/app/f2527954a959bce4
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_b750d0f1-9996-4394-b0e4- f76f6c77df3d
https://claude.ai/share/c2bd913d-7bd1-4741-a919-f0acc040494b
 

And the LIE is that your HHH does what you say.
Yes, if the one and only HHH doesn't ever abort, then the DDD built on it will be non-halting.
But, if HHH ever aborts its simulation of the DIFFERENT DDD (since DDD is different for each different HHH that it is built oo), then it has stopped its simulation BEFORE it sees a REAL non-terminating pattern, as the pattern that HHH saw exists in the simulation of DDD when actually correctly simulated by a real correct simulator (which HHH isn't).
You admit that the direct execution of DDD halts, and thus a correct simulation of it must reach that final state.
Your "logic" is based on the LIE that a partial simulation that doesn't reach the terminal state can be thought of as "non-terminating"
Sorry, you are just proving that you are an IDIOT that has burnt out his brain by repeating his lies so many times that he can not think about them.
You have effectiveely ADMITTED that these are lies by acknoledging the basic facts that I present, and by NEVER actually trying to refute any of the error I point out you just show your stupidity by just repeating one of your lies that have been refuted.