Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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 23:26:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <103l6gv$3ul4b$2@dont-email.me>
References: <103acoo$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> <103j1di$3bke4$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 06:26:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a5e8bf149ad22c63d77dbd8bd904cd54";
	logging-data="4150411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/d3LEMnh0/c+esPHZ86Gwf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q6PnlO64R3B6uJwLoTLe7u/D3IM=
In-Reply-To: <103j1di$3bke4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250626-6, 6/26/2025), Outbound message

On 6/26/2025 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 25.jun.2025 om 17:42 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Why repeating claims that have been proven incorrect.
> The input to HHH is a pointer to code, that includes the code of HHH, 
> including the code to abort and halt. Therefore, it specifies a halting 
> program.

*No, you are using an incorrect measure*
*I have addressed this too many times*

DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own simulated "return" statement
final halt state *No matter what HHH does*
Therefore the input to HHH(DD) unequivocally
specifies non-halting behavior.

> That HHH is programmed to be blind for that behaviour does not change 
> the specification.



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