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: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:00:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <103v1de$2cv2u$2@dont-email.me>
References: <103acoo$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> <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>
 <103po66$13ceo$1@dont-email.me>
 <791b043a2d6339f11b59047cf73530a615b44618@i2pn2.org>
 <103pt9f$14jbv$1@dont-email.me> <103r160$1f1bd$1@dont-email.me>
 <103rjml$1icfh$8@dont-email.me> <103tenu$4jan$1@dont-email.me>
 <103uepa$29d75$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 00:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2525e8d75a2872aa3d27b0f72aced4f";
	logging-data="2522206"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PIQrCwB1EDsCaksY6ZIaK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8oYlVXp24oJ43m8ubxhmvdG3/dA=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250630-6, 6/30/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <103uepa$29d75$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/30/2025 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 08:35, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 29.jun.2025 om 16:47 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/29/2025 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-28 23:19:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/2025 6:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/28/25 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there is no HHH that correctly simulates the DDD that the HHH 
>>>>>> that answers,
>>>>> Proven to be counter-factual and over your head.
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> The exact same code that correctly recognizes infinite
>>>>> recursion sees this non-terminating pattern after one
>>>>> single recursive emulation.
>>>>
>>>> Recursive simulation is not the same as recorsive call. Consequently
>>>> what is correct about recursive calls may be incorrect about
>>>> recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually from the POV of HHH it is exactly the same
>>> as if DDD() called HHH(DDD) that simply calls DDD().
>>> HHH has no idea that DDD is calling itself.
>>>
>>> It sees DDD call the same function twice in sequence
>>> with no conditional branch instructions inbetween the
>>> beginning of DDD and its called to HHH(DDD).
>>>
>>> There are conditional branch instructions in HHH
>>> that HHH does ignore. These are irrelevant. They
>>> cannot possibly cause the simulated DDD to reach
>>> its own simulated final halt state, the correct
>>> measure of halting.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly these conditional branch instruction are the cause for the 
>> abort done by HHH, which then returns to DDD, which then halts.
>> This is shown by world class smulators and also by HHH1, which does 
>> count these conditional branch instructions and, therefore, is able to 
>> reach the end of the simulation.
> 
> HHH1 does not count the conditional branch instructions.  The 
> explanation for it reaching the end of the simulation is that 

HHH1(DDD)'s input does not call itself in recursive simulation
like the input to HHH(DDD) does call itself in recursive simulation.

All the chatbots (even the stupid one) knows that the input
to HHH(DDD) calls HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation preventing
DDD correctly simulated by HHH from reaching its own simulated
"return" instruction final halt state.

So it is either the case that everyone here is more stupid than
a stupid chatbot or these chatbots make a detectable error that
can be actually proven to be an error.

I say that DDD correctly simulated by HHH specifies behavior that
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction final halt state.

*There has been no actual rebuttal to this*
Rebuttals that rely on counter-factual assumptions
do not count as actual rebuttals.

> in 
> addition to ignoring the conditional branch instructions, it also 
> effectively ignores the calls and jumps etc. in HHH, and so never sees 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========