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 HHH refutes the standard halting problem
 proof method
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 20:34:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <103vduo$2flaf$2@dont-email.me>
References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103k0sc$2q38$1@news.muc.de>
 <103k1mc$3j4ha$1@dont-email.me> <103lfn1$ml0$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m813$6dce$1@dont-email.me> <103ol2u$raq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103onmp$rq7e$1@dont-email.me> <103r0ce$1esb9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103rhf6$1hc53$8@dont-email.me>
 <0c50a8ee4efb36cef4271674792a090125187f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <gPg8Q.1988877$4AM6.189428@fx17.ams4>
 <a60543ff9feb748df80b32970c67bb8c7ab13d89@i2pn2.org>
 <tJA8Q.6$r61e.2@fx11.ams4>
 <5e7f84c84b4ed51e195dd33afd9ed7eca89be454@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 03:34:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2525e8d75a2872aa3d27b0f72aced4f";
	logging-data="2610511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+LmKlgi25V21Oj39F/AgqB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hAnogHPNGnTWf6MeonU0HRhsTEY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250630-6, 6/30/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <5e7f84c84b4ed51e195dd33afd9ed7eca89be454@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/30/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 22:39:10 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/29/25 3:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 15:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Remember, the simulator must be simulating the INPUT, and thus to go
>>>>> past the call HHH instruction, the code must be part of the input, and
>>>>> the input needs to be a constant.
>>>> No. If HHH is simulating DDD then HHH can detect a call to itself being
>>>> passed DDD within DDD and can assert at that point that the input is
>>>> non-
>>>> halting.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> And thus isn't simu;ating THE INPUT, and that the input isn't a PROGRAM.
>>>
>>> Also, what if DDD is using a copy of HHH, as per the proof program,
>>> which might have variations in the code.
>>>
>>> Sorry, just shows you don't understand the problem.
>>
>> No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to completion if it can
>> determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts.
>>
>> /Flibble
> 
> Right, but the program of the input DOES halt.
> 

The directly executed DDD() *IS NOT AN INPUT*
Directly executed Turing machines have always been
outside of the domain of any function computed by
a Turing machine therefore directly executed Turing
machines have never contradicted the decision of
any halt decider.

Halt deciders compute the mapping from the behavior
that their finite string inputs actually specifies.


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