From Newsgroup: comp.theory

The LLMs got more confused when I put in the escape
route (c) that Kaz suggested yet still came up with
the same answer when the spec was made 100% precise.


<analysis mode="simulation" rules="strict">
- You must simulate the input **exactly as written**,
step by step, without any external reasoning, assumptions,
or guesses.

- **Do not analyze, infer, or speculate**; only describe
what the simulation observes in execution.

- Report only the behavior that occurs in the simulation.

- Always follow the priority rules exactly:
1. (a) Detect non-terminating behavior → abort
simulation and return 0.
2. (b) Return statement reached → return 1.
3. (c) Neither (a) nor (b) → return -1.

- Do not include any commentary about halting problem,
contradictions, or theoretical reasoning.

- All output must be in terms of simulation observations only.
</analysis>

<Input>
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.
(c) Neither (a) nor (b) is met 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;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?

</Input>
--
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.theory

On 2025-10-22 02:23:24 +0000, olcott said:

The LLMs got more confused when I put in the escape
route (c) that Kaz suggested yet still came up with
the same answer when the spec was made 100% precise.

<analysis mode="simulation" rules="strict">
- You must simulate the input **exactly as written**,
step by step, without any external reasoning, assumptions,
or guesses.

- **Do not analyze, infer, or speculate**; only describe
what the simulation observes in execution.

- Report only the behavior that occurs in the simulation.

- Always follow the priority rules exactly:
1. (a) Detect non-terminating behavior → abort
simulation and return 0.
2. (b) Return statement reached → return 1.
3. (c) Neither (a) nor (b) → return -1.

- Do not include any commentary about halting problem,
contradictions, or theoretical reasoning.

- All output must be in terms of simulation observations only.
</analysis>

<Input>
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.
(c) Neither (a) nor (b) is met 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;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?

</Input>

HHH should correctly return -1 for every input per the requirent (c)
because neither (a) nor (b) is met when HHH starts and will not be
before the requirement (c) is met.
--
Mikko

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 10/22/2025 4:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-10-22 02:23:24 +0000, olcott said:

The LLMs got more confused when I put in the escape
route (c) that Kaz suggested yet still came up with
the same answer when the spec was made 100% precise.


<analysis mode="simulation" rules="strict">
- You must simulate the input **exactly as written**,
   step by step, without any external reasoning, assumptions,
   or guesses.

- **Do not analyze, infer, or speculate**; only describe
     what the simulation observes in execution.

- Report only the behavior that occurs in the simulation.

- Always follow the priority rules exactly:
     1. (a) Detect non-terminating behavior → abort
            simulation and return 0.
     2. (b) Return statement reached → return 1.
     3. (c) Neither (a) nor (b) → return -1.

- Do not include any commentary about halting problem,
   contradictions, or theoretical reasoning.

- All output must be in terms of simulation observations only.
</analysis>

<Input>
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.
(c) Neither (a) nor (b) is met 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;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?

</Input>

HHH should correctly return -1 for every input per the requirent (c)
because neither (a) nor (b) is met when HHH starts and will not be
before the requirement (c) is met.

BZZZttt Wrong answer.
LLMs are much better than you because they can be
forced to pay complete attention to ALL the rules

You did not give (a) The highest priority.
You leapt to an unjustified conclusion.

ChatGPT did this about a dozen times until
I got it to write the above script. Then
every LLM got straight to the correct answer.
--
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.theory

On 10/22/2025 5:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/22/2025 4:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-10-22 02:23:24 +0000, olcott said:

The LLMs got more confused when I put in the escape
route (c) that Kaz suggested yet still came up with
the same answer when the spec was made 100% precise.


<analysis mode="simulation" rules="strict">
- You must simulate the input **exactly as written**,
   step by step, without any external reasoning, assumptions,
   or guesses.

- **Do not analyze, infer, or speculate**; only describe
     what the simulation observes in execution.

- Report only the behavior that occurs in the simulation.

- Always follow the priority rules exactly:
     1. (a) Detect non-terminating behavior → abort
            simulation and return 0.
     2. (b) Return statement reached → return 1.
     3. (c) Neither (a) nor (b) → return -1.

- Do not include any commentary about halting problem,
   contradictions, or theoretical reasoning.

- All output must be in terms of simulation observations only.
</analysis>

<Input>
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.
(c) Neither (a) nor (b) is met 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;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?

</Input>

HHH should correctly return -1 for every input per the requirent (c)
because neither (a) nor (b) is met when HHH starts and will not be
before the requirement (c) is met.

BZZZttt Wrong answer.
LLMs are much better than you because they can be
forced to pay complete attention to ALL the rules

LOL! You, Olcott are the one that forces them to believe your crap. You
say my bowl of smelly shit smells like roses because olcott is the one
true god?

You did not give (a) The highest priority.
You leapt to an unjustified conclusion.

ChatGPT did this about a dozen times until
I got it to write the above script. Then
every LLM got straight to the correct answer.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2