Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Four Chatbots figure out on their own without prompting that
 HHH(DDD)==0
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:16:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <105h5ge$2vdb1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <105bdps$1g61u$1@dont-email.me> <105c0lk$1k7ip$1@dont-email.me>
 <105c22v$1k9r9$3@dont-email.me> <105c5rt$1l4j7$1@dont-email.me>
 <105cddu$1r7mi$1@dont-email.me>
 <35481692c9b805cd713086659451ee8a456d3d16@i2pn2.org>
 <105gase$2pk90$3@dont-email.me>
 <4750857dbcb68380c00c2cc2752cf3371ef6ae02@i2pn2.org>
 <105gr3s$2t8jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <76de7d874ac75cb915c86b297191c6ed4fbedfdf.camel@gmail.com>
 <105gsoi$2tpa1$1@dont-email.me>
 <17740847a5bfd02e85e6719fee698afe69be5384.camel@gmail.com>
 <105gtiv$2tpa1$3@dont-email.me>
 <49f9dd439d01ac56217e009870ee94417854c1e2.camel@gmail.com>
 <105gvt6$2ucst$1@dont-email.me>
 <348a6bbcb4c47d88ce91c23e43d81ec19fdd4fc4.camel@gmail.com>
 <105h1ar$2uj5e$1@dont-email.me>
 <e15bb09de743ab0b82587d9e2e1349e409b7458b.camel@gmail.com>
 <105h35a$2uujj$1@dont-email.me>
 <d22250f46d078c778f7b6fde0433705ba11c9ed9.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 00:16:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b17940e46cfbc33e640f3b7657335c3";
	logging-data="3126625"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yGesnUyAn1/E2dvfI0I6A"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7n+bhuUV057od6hog6ByGlYulOc=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <d22250f46d078c778f7b6fde0433705ba11c9ed9.camel@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250719-4, 7/19/2025), Outbound message

On 7/19/2025 5:08 PM, wij wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 16:36 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/19/2025 4:26 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 16:05 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/19/2025 3:57 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 15:41 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/19/2025 3:14 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HP is very simple: H(D)=1 if D halts, H(D)=0 if D does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The standard proof assumes a decider
>>>>>> H(M,x) that determines whether machine
>>>>>> M halts on input x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this formulation is flawed, because:
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever the 'formulation' is, the HP result is a fact that no H can decide
>>>>> the halting status of any given D.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that is wrong because H(⟨D⟩) is correctly determined.
>>>> It has always been a type mismatch error when H(D) was
>>>> assumed.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is type mismatch problems in nearly all discussions.
>>> But I don't think you will understand what it is.
>>>
>>
>> I have proven that I do and you only deny this
>> because you are not interested in an honest
>> dialogue.
> 
> You like to ignore what people say, only insterested in one-sided talk,
> showing you are not interested in honest discussion.
> 
>>>>>> Turing machines can only process finite encodings
>>>>>> (e.g. ⟨M⟩), not executable entities like M.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the valid formulation must be
>>>>>> H(⟨M⟩,x), where ⟨M⟩ is a string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting Problem::= H(D)=1 if D halts, H(D)=0 if D does not halt.
>>>>> The conclusion is, no such H exists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that is wrong because H(⟨D⟩) is correctly determined.
>>>> It has always been a type mismatch error when H(D) was
>>>> assumed.
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>      if (Halt_Status)
>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>      return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> A type mismatch: HHH(DD) or HHH(<DDD>)?
>>>
>>
>> DD points to the finite string machine
>> description of DD it does not point to
>> the executing process of DD.
> 
> That is what I predicted: You don't understand what you said.
> (because it is a bit technical, I will skip this part)
> 

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

Do you even know what an executing process is?
Probably not and you will use some lame excuse for not answering.

The finite string of x86 machine code pointed to by P
*is not an executing process*

It is the equivalent of of a machine description
that completely specifies (not merely describes)
behavior.

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