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: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:09:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <1040j5h$2ql69$7@dont-email.me>
References: <103acoo$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> <103v1de$2cv2u$2@dont-email.me>
 <10406m5$7a1e$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 14:09:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2525e8d75a2872aa3d27b0f72aced4f";
	logging-data="2970825"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/t86DiYwmb+cXCWH0La4zo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3bqcxjQRr3AqvKl9tkTWS3a8CgE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250701-2, 7/1/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10406m5$7a1e$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/1/2025 3:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.jul.2025 om 00:00 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 
> Indeed, the failure of the programmer is that he thinks that a simulator 
> can simulate itself correctly in recursive simulation. 

OK I give up on you. I can't stand talking
to people that insist on denying verified facts.

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