From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

This ChatGPT analysis of its input below
correctly derives both of our views. I did
not bias this analysis by telling ChatGPT
what I expect to see.

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

void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
DDD();
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts its simulation and returns 0,
(b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then it returns 1.

https://chatgpt.com/share/688521d8-e5fc-8011-9d7c-0d77ac83706c

*Same thing saved as a PDF* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394042683_ChatGPT_analyzes_HHHDDD
--
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

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 7/27/25 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:

This ChatGPT analysis of its input below
correctly derives both of our views. I did
not bias this analysis by telling ChatGPT
what I expect to see.

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

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}

int main()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  DDD();
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts its simulation and returns 0,
(b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then it returns 1.

https://chatgpt.com/share/688521d8-e5fc-8011-9d7c-0d77ac83706c

*Same thing saved as a PDF* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394042683_ChatGPT_analyzes_HHHDDD

Just shows that you have corrupted your version of ChatGPT.

It admits that HHH becomes infinitely recursive in its simulation, which should mean it can't return.

It then says it returns 0

These are contradictory.

Note, AIs don't necessarily remove all information from previous
sessions, even if they say they do.

I suppose the question is have you polluted other peoples machines, in
which case you may become liable for you intentional deceptive teaching
of the AI.

You will need to hope that no one tries to go after you, as you WILL
lose your arguement in a court of law, as you have shown a reckless
disregard for the truth.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 16:03:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/27/25 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:

This ChatGPT analysis of its input below correctly derives both of our
views. I did not bias this analysis by telling ChatGPT what I expect to
see.

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

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}

int main()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  DDD();
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input
until: (a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts
its simulation and returns 0,
(b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then
it returns 1.

https://chatgpt.com/share/688521d8-e5fc-8011-9d7c-0d77ac83706c

*Same thing saved as a PDF*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

394042683_ChatGPT_analyzes_HHHDDD

Just shows that you have corrupted your version of ChatGPT.

It admits that HHH becomes infinitely recursive in its simulation, which should mean it can't return.

It then says it returns 0

These are contradictory.

Note, AIs don't necessarily remove all information from previous
sessions, even if they say they do.

I suppose the question is have you polluted other peoples machines, in
which case you may become liable for you intentional deceptive teaching
of the AI.

You will need to hope that no one tries to go after you, as you WILL
lose your arguement in a court of law, as you have shown a reckless
disregard for the truth.

I suggest you attempt to get a grip on reality, mate.

/Flibble
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 7/27/2025 3:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/27/25 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:

This ChatGPT analysis of its input below
correctly derives both of our views. I did
not bias this analysis by telling ChatGPT
what I expect to see.

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

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts its
simulation and returns 0,
(b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then
it returns 1.

https://chatgpt.com/share/688521d8-e5fc-8011-9d7c-0d77ac83706c

*Same thing saved as a PDF*
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/394042683_ChatGPT_analyzes_HHHDDD

Just shows that you have corrupted your version of ChatGPT.

That is not even the way that it works, nitwit.

It admits that HHH becomes infinitely recursive in its simulation, which should mean it can't return.

It then says it returns 0

These are contradictory.

Note, AIs don't necessarily remove all information from previous
sessions, even if they say they do.

I suppose the question is have you polluted other peoples machines, in
which case you may become liable for you intentional deceptive teaching
of the AI.

You will need to hope that no one tries to go after you, as you WILL
lose your arguement in a court of law, as you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth.

No it is just that you are too fucking stupid
to understand something as simple as recursive
simulation.
--
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

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 7/27/25 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/27/2025 3:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/27/25 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:

This ChatGPT analysis of its input below
correctly derives both of our views. I did
not bias this analysis by telling ChatGPT
what I expect to see.

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

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until: >>> (a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts its
simulation and returns 0,
(b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then
it returns 1.

https://chatgpt.com/share/688521d8-e5fc-8011-9d7c-0d77ac83706c

*Same thing saved as a PDF*
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/394042683_ChatGPT_analyzes_HHHDDD

Just shows that you have corrupted your version of ChatGPT.

That is not even the way that it works, nitwit.

Sure it is. The machines are continually being updated. Perhaps you
don't understand that (lack of) privacy statement you acceptdd when you
used them.

It admits that HHH becomes infinitely recursive in its simulation,
which should mean it can't return.

It then says it returns 0

These are contradictory.

Note, AIs don't necessarily remove all information from previous
sessions, even if they say they do.

I suppose the question is have you polluted other peoples machines, in
which case you may become liable for you intentional deceptive
teaching of the AI.

You will need to hope that no one tries to go after you, as you WILL
lose your arguement in a court of law, as you have shown a reckless
disregard for the truth.

No it is just that you are too fucking stupid
to understand something as simple as recursive
simulation.

No, YOU don't understad what a program is.

If HHH gets stuck in infininite recursion, it can't return an answer.

If it doesn't get stuck, then the program based on it doesn't get stuck either.

All you are doing is showing that you fundamentally don't understand the basics of what you are doing.

Either DDD includes the HHH that it calls, and thus benefits from its
decison, and you are shown to be a liar, or
it doesn't and the input isn't a progra and is just a category error,
and you are also shown to be a liar.

Sorry, those are the choices, and you can't admit which error you are
making because it make the error too obvious.

THAT is why you can't answer any of the question put to you, as you are
at the point where any explainations just blow up your claims, so you
need to just bluster to try to avoid being shown to be a fool, but that
just makes you look foolish.

As pointed out, if someone decides that your poisoning of the AI pool is
worth fighting, your finances are cooked. Your only hope is the fact
that for someone to do that, they will probably see that you aren't financially worth it, so it would need to be done as an example.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2