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: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 21:58:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <103l1d7$3tktb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me>
 <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org>
 <103cvjc$1k41c$1@dont-email.me>
 <be0bff3b8d006e02858b9791d8508499992cbfda@i2pn2.org>
 <103edbp$22250$5@dont-email.me> <103g91n$2kugi$1@dont-email.me>
 <103h5dc$2rinm$4@dont-email.me> <103j6li$3dbba$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 04:58:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a5e8bf149ad22c63d77dbd8bd904cd54";
	logging-data="4117419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/P1nMXTuVQ6ob8gQCmBIh8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q0uMD4/7TQYUY4967wrehUFNvAk=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250626-6, 6/26/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <103j6li$3dbba$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/26/2025 5:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-25 15:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/25/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-24 14:39:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> *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.
>>>
>>> No matter who agrees, the directly executed DDD is mote than
>>> merely the first step of otherwise infinitely recursive
>>> emulation that is terminated at its second step. Not much
>>> more but anyway. After the return of HHH(DDD) there is the
>>> return from DDD which is the last thing DDD does before its
>>> termination.
>>
>> *HHH(DDD) the input to HHH specifies non-terminating behavior*
>> The fact that DDD() itself halts does not contradict that
>> because the directly executing DDD() cannot possibly be an
>> input to HHH in the Turing machine model of computation,
>> thus is outside of the domain of HHH.
> 
> The input in HHH(DDD) is the same DDD that is executed in DDD()
> so the behaviour specified by the input is the behavour of
> directly executed DDD, a part of which is the behaour of the
> HHH that DDD calls.
> 
> If HHH does not report about DDD but instead reports about itself
> or its own actions it is not a partial halt decideer nor a partial
> termination analyzer, as those are not allowed to report on their
> own behavour more than "cannot determine".
> 

Functions computed by Turing Machines are required to compute
the mapping from their inputs and not allowed to take other
executing Turing machines as inputs.

This means that every directly executed Turing machine is
outside of the domain of every function computed by any
Turing machine.


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