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 07:07:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 146
Message-ID: <1040j2b$2ql69$6@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>
 <103s40o$1m8dn$1@dont-email.me>
 <93801c0e35ee58f2673bea24c614e2fc683b55ce@i2pn2.org>
 <103sutf$1utb9$1@dont-email.me>
 <3cbdc10609ef73de4d91adaa33cded8cef5117f6@i2pn2.org>
 <103ufqg$292c0$3@dont-email.me>
 <17a2593ee804665b9f412c522a6f64c7618c202f@i2pn2.org>
 <103vdgi$2flaf$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea71d52059ab645fa0360dfcfd8923749e9e8324@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 14:07:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2525e8d75a2872aa3d27b0f72aced4f";
	logging-data="2970825"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19edauskBSkR7GWy2mtH2BK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6IAjwmWwJxOP+GKDR/CzpSRMwuM=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250701-2, 7/1/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ea71d52059ab645fa0360dfcfd8923749e9e8324@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/1/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/30/25 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/30/2025 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/30/25 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One line of C source-code is a C statement.
>>>> HHH simulates six statements of DDD.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't, as that line of C refers to HHH, and to process that 
>>> line, you need to process ALL the lines in HHH.
>>>
>>
>> Yes this is true.
>> What the F did you think that I meant by:
>>
>> HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH...
> 
> Except that isn't what you said HHH does!
> 
> YOu said HHH simulated DDD until it recognizes a non-halting pattern.
> 
> You have omitted this in your "loop"
> 

Recursive emulation is not a loop.

> It should be:
> HHH simulated DDD that calls HHH, until it recognizes a non-halting 
> pattern,
> Which results in it simulating HHH simulating DDD until it recognizes a 
> non-halting pattern...
> Which results in it simulating HHH simulating DDD until it recognizes a 
> non-halting pattern...
> Which results in it simulating HHH simulating DDD until it recognizes a 
> non-halting pattern...
> Which results in it simulating HHH simulating DDD until it recognizes a 
> non-halting pattern...
> 

It is more precisely accurate the way that you
did it yet too confusing to get the gist of the
idea of recursive emulation.

> The problem is when you include that we KNOW that, since the outer HHH 
> *WILL* at some point abort (since you assume that will happen) that this 
> simulated HHH will also do that, and thus make the DDD that called it 
> halting.
> 

If you are going to call impossibly reaching its final halt state
halting you might as well call it also makes you breakfast in bed.

> Your problem is you didn't CORRECTLY simulate the HHH that DDD calls, as 
> you ERRONEOUSLY assumed that it will not halt in order to claim that you 
> have a non-halting pattern.
> 

When N x86 instructions of DDD are simulated
according to the semantics of the x86 language
then N N x86 instructions of DDD are simulated
correctly. This includes HHH simulating itself
simulating DDD at least once.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for
you unless you grossly exaggerated your competence
at programming.

> THe problem is whatever criteria is used to abort, is part of the code 
> that is being analyized, and thus you need to take that into account 
> when you try to prove that the pattern is non-halting.
> 

Repeat this to yourself 500 times so that you will
remember it by the time you make your next reply.

*DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
*its own simulated "return" statement final halt state*

*DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
*its own simulated "return" statement final halt state*

*DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
*its own simulated "return" statement final halt state*

> Your "logic" doesn't understand how programs work and are defined, 
> because your "logic" comes out of your own ignorance of the field.
> 
>>
>>
>>> You are just showing you don't understand the basics of how computers 
>>> and programs work.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Note, "C" doesn't define "instructions", but operations as defined 
>>>>> by the abstract machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> The operations defined in DDD:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fetch the value of DDD
>>>>> Pass that as a parameter to HHH
>>>>> Call the funciton HHH,
>>>>> Perform the operations of function HHH
>>>>> Return
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the machine language level HHH correctly
>>>> simulated four x86 instructions of DDD six times.
>>>
>>> Nope, doesn't simulate the CALL instruction.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it does.
> 
> Then why doesn't it show the x86 instuctions executed?
> 
> Of the sequence points inside of the HHH that it called?
> 
>>
>> What the F did you think that I meant by:
>> HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH
>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH...
>>
>>
> 
> As I said, that isn't a simulation of HHH, as that isn't what HHH doess, 
> because it LIES about the fact that HHH, as you have defined it, *WILL* 
> abort and return 0, and thus every DDD will halt.
> 
> All you are doing is proving that you don't understand what you are 
> talkinga about, and just refuse to look at the facts, because you are 
> just a pathological liar that has been brainwashed by yourself into 
> unconditionaly believing your own lies.


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