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 16:52:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <103po66$13ceo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103acoo$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>
 <103l1d7$3tktb$1@dont-email.me> <103lf9c$j25$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m99g$6dce$3@dont-email.me> <103olot$rfba$1@dont-email.me>
 <103os6c$rq7e$10@dont-email.me>
 <aa791c25d470a6f14c55d960dc3344f4cfefda97@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 23:52:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c5709712fc7771c125bfe4c60a9c3b1";
	logging-data="1159640"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19I/iVcQhU9F3TYI++JGH0t"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qnDrdoaSLiy49a8FUHehfRqnFCc=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250628-6, 6/28/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <aa791c25d470a6f14c55d960dc3344f4cfefda97@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/28/2025 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/28/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, it just says that you don't understand the concept of representation.
> 

There exists no finite number of steps where N steps of
DDD are correctly simulated by HHH and this simulated DDD
reaches its simulated "return" statement final halts state.


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