1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. cplusplus

  • All rebuttals to this have been proven to be counter-factual

    From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Mon Aug 25 12:07:42 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c++

    On 8/25/2025 11:50 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
    On 25/08/2025 17:15, dbush wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:
    It does not change the sequence of instructions
    of replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
    subsequently running HHH(DD)
    Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

    But that is how PO operates.

    There is /no/ logic underlying what he says.

    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*
    *That is counter-factual*

    <Input to LLM systems>
    Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
    (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
    abort simulation and return 0.
    (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement:
    return 1.

    typedef int (*ptr)();
    int HHH(ptr P);

    int DD()
    {
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
    }

    What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
    <Input to LLM systems>

    Five different LLM systems formed a consensus on
    the basis of the verified fact that DD correctly
    simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
    "return" statement final halt state in any finite
    number of steps.

    Not one single person has ever provided a correct
    rebuttal to this. The closest they ever came is
    to state a dogmatic assertion that is proven to be
    counter-factual.

    Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct in terms
    that any expert C programmer can understand. https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c

    https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c

    https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21-eedd0f09e141

    Gemini had to be forced into do not guess mode https://g.co/gemini/share/4f44c883b348

    ChatGPT 5.0 had to be forced into do not guess mode https://chatgpt.com/share/68abcbd5-cee4-8011-80d7-93e8385d90d8

    He just starts with saying
    something he /thinks/ ought to be true, and over time he tries out 100 different phrasings and "justifications" to see how they get on.
    Sometimes he abandons a phrasing, because it's ridiculed to such an
    extent that PO realises it is actively harming his position.-a I expect
    that will be the fate of the current "it does not change the sequence of instructions".-a He does not abandon it because he logically understands
    he made a mistake - it's purely a practical decision that it's not working...

    Occasionally he hits on a wording that has become so full of duffer-
    speak that it really isn't clear what he actually means by it, so
    posters [rather than forcing PO to clarify his intent, which they kind
    of know is a dead end] just decide on one of a number of translations
    which is surely "what PO must really be intending to say", and proceed
    on those grounds.-a That leads to lack of clarity and likely some discrepencies between approaches different posters are taking.-a PO takes that as SUCCESS!-a He has finally "improved his wording" to the extent
    that nobody understands what's going on [the idiots!], and nobody is
    able to "refute his argument" (to his satisfaction)!!

    Those phrasings make it into his go-to "fly spray" collection that he liberally sprays over all objections to his claims.


    Mike.

    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2