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

On 6/27/25 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/27/2025 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/27/25 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/27/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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
>

>
>
Perhaps I should point you to this too:
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ffs9s3DTc
>
>
IT shows why LLM are not good at this field.

>
Maybe ALL that you have is empty rhetoric entirely
bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>
It is stupidly simple that DDD correctly simulated by
HHH cannot possible reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.
>
If you even know what ordinary recursion is you would
know this. That is why I called my reviewers despicable
lying bastards.
>
>

>
But the problem is that the HHH that does a correct simulation doesn't answer, and is looking at a different input then the HHH that does answer.
>

 By this same psychotic reasoning no one can count
at all until after they have counted to infinity.
 

And where do you get that from?
The claim is that you haven't counted ALL the numbers/steps until you have reached infinity, not that you haven't done any.
The problem isn't that HHH has done a "partial simulation", it is that it (and you) think that this is enough to be a "Correct Simulation".
In other words, you error is having your model be that completion of an infinite task occurs after finite work.
Sorry, you mind just doesn't understand abstract things like the infinite, and don't understand the difference between partial and complate, or some and all.
You really need to seek profesional help to handle your clearly present mental psychosis.