Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the
 conventional HP proof
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 10:28:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <104bga9$1hqln$4@dont-email.me>
References: <1049cr4$10io1$1@dont-email.me>
 <c561a75ab41d6eb31be50a708c1d9e385856c025@i2pn2.org>
 <1049jdi$11mmt$1@dont-email.me> <104al3u$jhv8$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 17:28:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3f20c216653e9576f04ef75b87489cd0";
	logging-data="1632951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19iLWUa66Xb2Ejm/vjFJOSq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hErEqkyAJ7v1O+qv8QVU53Fci0E=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250705-4, 7/5/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <104al3u$jhv8$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/5/2025 2:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 05.jul.2025 om 00:08 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since you LIE with the following statement;
>>>
>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>>> and returns 0.
>>>
>>> Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts, 
>>
>> Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
>> domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
>> thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.
> 
> Irrelevant, because HHH should report on its input. 

Thus you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with dbush
and many textbooks.

> This input includes 
> the abort code and specifies a halting program.

*That is the part that is way over your head*
If HHH was reporting on its own termination status you
would be correct.

HHH(DD) is reporting on whether of not DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C programming language
can possibly  reach its own simulated "return" statement.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

DDD is the simplified version of DD().

> That is proven by direct execution of the same input, but there is no 
> need for the HHH to know about the direct execution.
> The direct execution is only a proof of the failure of HHH.
> 

*No it is not proof of failure*
The requirement that halt deciders report on things outside
of their domain (directly executed machines) has always been
bogus. All directly executed Turing machines have always been
ouside of the domain of all Turing machine based deciders.

Claude understands this and agrees and sees this as a new idea.

>>
>>> since HHH DOES return 0 as you stipulated, this statement is just a 
>>> lie of asserting the existance of a condition that doesn't exist.
>>>
>>


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