On 10/27/25 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/27/2025 10:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Now that four different LLM systems have been able
reverse-engineer the non-halting result by merely
being told to faithfully simulate DD with HHH and
see what happens this proves that all of my reviewers
have been dishonest with me for three years.
No, dishonest people don't congregate with eachother in newsgroups.ÿ What
the above proves is that your four LLM system are being "dishonest" with
you.ÿ They're hallucinating, perhaps due to having read so much of your
nonsense in this newsgroup.
Remember the basic rule about your posts, which holds virtually
invariably:ÿ Olcott is wrong.
A straight forward sequence of steps that any
C programmer can easily determine:
int DD()
{
ÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
ÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿ return Halt_Status;
}
HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.
And if that *IS* what HHH is defined to do, we need to ask if the code
actual DOES figure out what is up.
If HHH does think that DD will be non-halting and returns 0, then it is
clear that it is just wrong, as if HHH(DD) returns 0, it will do so to
the call from DD, and thus DD will halt.
Thus, *ANY* HHH that does that is wrong.
Thus, the only HHH that meets your requirements must NEVER return an
answer, and thus not be a decider.
Your problem is you can't think your answer all the way to the end,
because you mind is just too small.
[ .... ]
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- PyGate Linux v1.5.1
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)