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: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 06:52:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <1040i6c$2ql69$4@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>
 <103vduo$2flaf$2@dont-email.me> <104067d$7a12$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 13:52:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2525e8d75a2872aa3d27b0f72aced4f";
	logging-data="2970825"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/m8aDbgcF9ApNakAKZzOGu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:svDACz+CXSMUutoejJtM93gFF4w=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <104067d$7a12$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250701-2, 7/1/2025), Outbound message

On 7/1/2025 3:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.jul.2025 om 03:34 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> The input is a pointer to a 'finite string' that includes the code of 
> DDD and all functions called by it, in particular including the code to 
> abort and halt.

*I keep correcting you on this and you keep ignoring my correction*
The measure is DDD simulated by HHH reaching its simulated "return"
statement final halt state. HHH continues to simulated DDD as a
pure simulator (that also simulates itself simulating DDD) until
HHH sees the non-terminating pattern.

> Therefore, even a beginner can see that this input specifies a halting 
> program. 
> That your HHH cannot see that, does not change the specification. 

Five chatbots all agree that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
non-terminating recursive emulation even though DDD() halts.

> Your attempt to distract from the specification with many irrelevant 
> words about direct execution that is not the input, does not change the 
> fact that the input specifies a halting program according to the 
> semantics of the x86 language. Exactly the same input, when given to 
> world-class simulators and direct execution show halting behaviour, 
> which supports this claim.
> 
> I have worked with many different simulators. The first thing that is 
> learned is that the goal of a simulation is to reproduce the properties 
> of reality. If it fails to reproduce relevant properties of reality, it 
> is a worthless and incorrect simulator. Your simulator is meant to 
> simulate the execution of x86 code. If that simulation has completely 
> different results from reality, than even beginners will understand that 
> the simulation is incorrect and worthless. Using such a simulation as a 
> measure for the halting behaviour of the program specified in the input 
> is ridiculous.



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