• ChatGPT and MIT professor Michael Sipser both agree that the essence of

    From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 27 18:07:56 2023
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    Professor Sipser is not aware that he agreed with the essence of my
    proof. What he did agree to is a single paragraph on page one of my
    paper linked below. This paragraph is the essence of my proof.

    MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
    paragraph is correct (he has not reviewed or agreed to anything else):

    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
    H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
    unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
    report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

    People that are not Hell bent on being disagreeable realize that the
    paragraph that professor Sipser agreed to is a tautology.

    People that are Hell bent on being disagreeable indicate that a
    simulation is not necessarily correct even if the simulator does
    correctly simulate the exact instructions that are specified by the
    machine code being simulated.

    I challenge them to provide an example of a specific line of machine
    code showing this and they dodge because they already know that what
    they said is not true.

    void D(void (*x)())
    {
    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
    if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
    return;
    }

    int main()
    {
    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
    }

    olcott
    This first sentence is an established fact: When H(D,D) correctly
    simulates its input the execution trace of this simulated input proves
    that it would never stop running because D continues to call H in
    recursive simulation. Then H aborts its simulation of D and returns 0 to
    main, indicating that D would never stop running unless aborted. Is H
    correct?

    ChatGPT
    It is a well-established fact that the program H is a variant of the
    classic example of the "halting problem", which is used to demonstrate
    that there is no general algorithm that can determine, for any given
    program and input, whether or not that program halts on that input. In
    the specific code you provided, the function D calls itself recursively
    through the function H, creating an infinite loop that never halts.
    Therefore, if the function H correctly simulates the behavior of D, it
    should correctly determine that D never halts, and return 0 to main. So
    in this case, H is correct.

    Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem


    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Jan 27 22:19:32 2023
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On 1/27/23 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
    Professor Sipser is not aware that he agreed with the essence of my
    proof. What he did agree to is a single paragraph on page one of my
    paper linked below. This paragraph is the essence of my proof.

    MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
    paragraph is correct (he has not reviewed or agreed to anything else):

        If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
        H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
        unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
        report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

    People that are not Hell bent on being disagreeable realize that the paragraph that professor Sipser agreed to is a tautology.

    People that are Hell bent on being disagreeable indicate that a
    simulation is not necessarily correct even if the simulator does
    correctly simulate the exact instructions that are specified by the
    machine code being simulated.

    I challenge them to provide an example of a specific line of machine
    code showing this and they dodge because they already know that what
    they said is not true.

    void D(void (*x)())
    {
      int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
      if (Halt_Status)
        HERE: goto HERE;
      return;
    }

    int main()
    {
      Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
    }

    olcott
    This first sentence is an established fact: When H(D,D) correctly
    simulates its input the execution trace of this simulated input proves
    that it would never stop running because D continues to call H in
    recursive simulation. Then H aborts its simulation of D and returns 0 to main, indicating that D would never stop running unless aborted. Is H correct?

    ChatGPT
    It is a well-established fact that the program H is a variant of the
    classic example of the "halting problem", which is used to demonstrate
    that there is no general algorithm that can determine, for any given
    program and input, whether or not that program halts on that input. In
    the specific code you provided, the function D calls itself recursively through the function H, creating an infinite loop that never halts. Therefore, if the function H correctly simulates the behavior of D, it
    should correctly determine that D never halts, and return 0 to main. So
    in this case, H is correct.

    Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem


    So, you can confuse the AI just like you have done to yourself.

    You still haven't answerd my question, which shows you don't HAVE an
    answer and you whole arguement is smoke and mirrors.

    Your published code shows that H(D,D) WILL return 0 whether main calls
    D(D) which calls H(D,D) and thus D(D) halts, or it main cals H(D,D)
    directly,

    THus the correct answer to the Halting question is Halting, and thus H
    is wrong.

    Until you show where that logic is in error, you are just a LIAR.

    A Damned Hypocritical Pathological Lying Idiot in particular.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)