Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting
 Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:30:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <103ecq2$22250$4@dont-email.me>
References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me>
 <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org>
 <103ag9k$10fmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b01bff1fe560095410422094a05ccac24c9fa7a@i2pn2.org>
 <103bodf$1a3c8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1b5b8f6a6c809724740bc68be167c5d535031e06@i2pn2.org>
 <103c36l$1cme6$5@dont-email.me>
 <287b4881fe38db4f642cd68acf6e58e4fcc030e9@i2pn2.org>
 <103cqt2$1j572$1@dont-email.me>
 <95b79075acf0e286add23d3f1c0e5672fde7a66e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 16:30:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa7ed0882fd77fbedcc6f5caeddfecb9";
	logging-data="2164896"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18sacJLMjJRTW0PtyxE9V8q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kFKhUvaSTvtqO7DhPrC92D3aHbk=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250624-4, 6/24/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <95b79075acf0e286add23d3f1c0e5672fde7a66e@i2pn2.org>

On 6/24/2025 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/23/25 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/23/2025 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/23/25 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/2025 10:34 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:30:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/23/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In particular, the pattern you are trying to claim to use, is 
>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>> the Halting Program D, DD, and DDD, so it is BY DEFINITION 
>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>> If you read the 38 pages you will see how this is incorrect. ChatGPT
>>>>>> "understands" that any program that must be aborted at some point to
>>>>>> prevent its infinite execution is not a halting program.
>>>>> Such as HHH, making it not a decider (when simulated).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> *dead obvious to any first year computer science student*
>>>> My claim is that DDD correctly simulated by any simulating
>>>> termination analyzer HHH that can possibly exist cannot possibly
>>>> reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is irrelevent, as any machine HHH that does that isn't a Halt 
>>> Decider, because it isn't a decider at all.
>>>
>>
>> You aren't bothering to think that through at all. Every HHH
>> that correctly simulates N instructions of DDD where N < ∞:
>> (a) Correctly simulates N instructions of DDD
>> (b) returns some value to its caller.
> 
> Right, but N < ∞ is not ALL, and thus not a "Correct Simulation"

It is incorrect to call a correct partial simulation
incorrect.

HHH does correctly determine that DDD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
final halt state if it were to correctly simulate ∞
instructions of DDD.

It does this using a form of mathematical induction
that takes a finite number of steps.

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

Every first year CS student knows that DDD simulated
by any hypothetical HHH cannot possibly reach its own
simulated "return" statement final halt state.

Your degrees in electrical engineering may have never
given you as much software engineering skill as a first
year CS student.

> but 
> only a PARTIAL simulation, and every one of those HHH's create a 
> DIFFERENT DDD, where there is a N < M such that the correct simulation 
> of THAT input will reach a final state, and thus shows that it is a 
> halting input.
> 
> If DDD doesn't include the code for HHH, then you can't use an N large 
> enough to reach the call instruction, as you can't correctly simulate 
> the code in the input as the code needed isn't *IN* the input.
> 
> Thus, you claim is just a lie by equivocation, you think you have only 
> one input because you exclude the code of HHH, so that part is the same, 
> but you also include the code of HHH (as part of the same memory space 
> but isn't actually in the input, so not really accessable in the input).
> 
> Your insistance on this just shows you are just a stupid pathological liar.
> 
>>
>>> Thus, your criteria is just based on the presumption of the 
>>> impossible, and the equivocation of what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> Those are just the tools of pathological liars.
>>
>>
> 
Your gross ignorance does not even show that I am incorrect.




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