From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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.ai.philosophy

On 10/21/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

You mean, they see the problem which you can't understand in your logic.

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

WHich since it isn't a complete program, is IMPOSSIBLE. Part of your
problem is you don't actually understand the terms you are using, like
what a "program" is, and how you can represent one to give as an input.

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

Which is outside the capability of a LMM.

- Report only the behavior that occurs in the simulation.

Which, since it can't actually be simulated is impossible.

Also, the actual question isn't about the simulation by the decider, but
the behavior of the program when run.

- 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.

How do you do (c). Since the actual question is about actual program
behavior, (c) can never accure.

Note, -1 is an IMPROPER anser for a decider, the input represents
something that either HAS or DOESN'T HAVE the property? Which actual
program either halts or runs forever?

If it IS about simulated behavior, if the decider decides to terminate,
(c) is always correct, thus the quesiton about the deciders simulation
is a trivial property.

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

Because that would show where your logic lies.

- 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>

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2