Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:24:52 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <103ip3k$3agc6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <YpG1Q.1572310$4AM6.1293015@fx17.ams4> <1027uhs$r7bj$2@dont-email.me> <6f1855be769b3afc319d871c0d451f381803ba5e@i2pn2.org> <1029hvm$1ah2f$1@dont-email.me> <102bhn6$1t2a1$1@dont-email.me> <102c462$20jl4$10@dont-email.me> <102e2p4$2iugr$1@dont-email.me> <102er47$2ohps$3@dont-email.me> <102gv1s$3cscf$1@dont-email.me> <102hgcp$3gqbm$3@dont-email.me> <102m36e$qohc$1@dont-email.me> <102mm8v$uef9$8@dont-email.me> <102ok6o$1gto6$1@dont-email.me> <102uj28$369b2$1@dont-email.me> <e91b630c3309a6776fbea87004d42cfc056925be@i2pn2.org> <102uo4d$37e9c$3@dont-email.me> <1030h24$3p4go$1@dont-email.me> <10343o8$4ms9$2@dont-email.me> <1035q0q$v9p7$1@dont-email.me> <1036kab$14sj8$4@dont-email.me> <1038d5j$dhql$1@dont-email.me> <1039avv$k7rv$2@dont-email.me> <103atot$13ku3$1@dont-email.me> <103brna$1a3c8$6@dont-email.me> <103dmdt$1t59o$1@dont-email.me> <103eds2$22250$7@dont-email.me> <103ga4i$2l4k4$1@dont-email.me> <103gvlv$2q86f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:24:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f20a42703c7e20a6ea1c7a187b5e159a";
	logging-data="3490182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19++fkeC049WViw0minw4v9"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JWi5DdnYchqICBZn3RN4m/Tfhjs=

On 2025-06-25 14:04:47 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/25/2025 2:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:48 schreef olcott:
>>> 
>>> *This is the question that HHH(DDD) correctly answers*
>>> Can DDD correctly simulated by any termination analyzer
>>> HHH that can possibly exist reach its own "return" statement
>>> final halt state?
>>> 
>>> Since any first year CS student can see that DDD
>>> simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>> "return" statement final halt state, then everyone
>>> not seeing this has proven to have insufficient
>>> technical competence to evaluate my work.
>>> 
>> 
>> Why repeating the obvious? Everyone here understands that HHH fails to 
>> reach the end of the simulation, where other simulators have no problem 
>> to reach the end of exactly the same input.
> 
> ChatGPT totally understands that HHH(DDD) correctly
> determines that DDD does not halt.
> 
>    *The Function DDD() In Principle*
>     The core issue is that DDD() is recursively calling
>     itself through HHH(DDD), which would lead to infinite
>     recursion if allowed to continue. HHH detects this
>     pattern and predicts that DDD() would not halt on its own.
> 
>     Therefore, HHH correctly reports that DDD() does not
>     halt, even though in the actual execution, it halts
>     because HHH steps in and prevents the infinite recursion.
> 
> *ChatGPT analysis of HHH(DDD)*
> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2

To agree that the wrong answer is correct shows lack of understanding.

-- 
Mikko