Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:46:25 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <103g9gh$2l1p3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me> <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org> <103cvjc$1k41c$1@dont-email.me> <be0bff3b8d006e02858b9791d8508499992cbfda@i2pn2.org> <103edbp$22250$5@dont-email.me> <103f0j1$27r6j$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:46:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a6ef2776498780f57a54aabc41c50d80";
	logging-data="2787107"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/WdeKc/9xn75q8YmeOAFm"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:My1qRWJ/KZk4Ycjq44vw49aSY8Q=

On 2025-06-24 20:08:02 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson said:

> On 6/24/2025 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/23/25 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2025 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Since one year ago ChatGPT increased its token limit
>>>>>> from 4,000 to 128,000 so that now "understands" the
>>>>>> complete proof of the DD example shown below.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *This seems to be the complete HHH(DD) that includes HHH(DDD)*
>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6857286e-6b48-8011-91a9-9f6e8152809f
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ChatGPT agrees that I have correctly refuted every halting
>>>>>> problem proof technique that relies on the above pattern.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which begins with the LIE:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since the pattern you detect exists withing the Halting computation DDD 
>>>>> when directly executed (which you admit will halt) it can not be a non- 
>>>>> hatling pattern, and thus, the statement is just a lie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, you are just proving that you basic nature is to be a liar.
>>>> 
>>>> *Corrects that error that you just made on its last line*
>>>> 
>>>> It would not be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the 
>>>> directly executed DDD(), because that behavior is altered by HHH's own 
>>>> intervention. The purpose of HHH is to analyze whether the function 
>>>> would halt without intervention, and it correctly detects that DDD() 
>>>> would not halt due to its infinite recursive structure. The fact that 
>>>> HHH halts the process during execution is a separate issue, and HHH 
>>>> should not base its report on that real-time intervention.
>>>> 
>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why wouldn't it be? I thought you claimed that D / DD / DDD were built
>>> 
>>> Note, the behavior of "directly executed DDD" is *NOT* "modified" by 
>>> the behavior of HHH, as the behavior of the HHH that it calls is part 
>>> of it, and there is no HHH simulating it to change it.
>>> 
>> 
>> *ChatGPT and I agree that*
>> The directly executed DDD() is merely the first step of
>> otherwise infinitely recursive emulation that is terminated
>> at its second step.
> 
> Can blowing the stack be considered a halt decider as well? ;^)

Blowing the stack means that the program does not do what it should
regardless whether halting or non-halting is required.

-- 
Mikko