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: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:54:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <103os6c$rq7e$10@dont-email.me>
References: <103acoo$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>
 <103l1d7$3tktb$1@dont-email.me> <103lf9c$j25$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m99g$6dce$3@dont-email.me> <103olot$rfba$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 15:54:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c5709712fc7771c125bfe4c60a9c3b1";
	logging-data="911598"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19BlJDUSD2s2iXEJctSURSl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Usrsqco5WB1vZF5kIuezfarrq1k=
In-Reply-To: <103olot$rfba$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250628-2, 6/28/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/28/2025 7:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-27 14:19:28 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/27/2025 1:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-27 02:58:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> There is no restriction on the functions.
>>
>> counter factual.
> 
> That is not a magic spell to create a restriction on functions.
> 
>>> A Turing machine is required
>>> to compute the function identified in its specification and no other
>>> function. For the halting problem the specification is that a halting
>>> decider must compute the mapping that maps to "yes" if the computation
>>> described by the input halts when directly executed.
>>
>> No one ever bothered to notice that because directly
>> executed Turing machines cannot possibly be inputs to
>> other Turing machines that these directly executed
>> Turing machines have never been in the domain of any
>> Turing machine.
> 
> Irrelevant. They are the domain of the halting problem. 

That they are in the domain of the halting problem
and not in the domain of any Turing machine proves
that the requirement of the halting problem is incorrect.

> If your
> decider cannot predict whether a computation halts it is not a
> halting decider.
> 
>> This excludes every TM from reporting on the behavior
>> of any directly executed TM. TM's can only report on
>> the behavior that their finite string input specifies.
> 
> No Turing machine has a behaviour that cannot be specified with a
> finite string.
> 


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