Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting
 Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:45:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <287b4881fe38db4f642cd68acf6e58e4fcc030e9@i2pn2.org>
References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me>
 <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org>
 <103ag9k$10fmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b01bff1fe560095410422094a05ccac24c9fa7a@i2pn2.org>
 <103bodf$1a3c8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1b5b8f6a6c809724740bc68be167c5d535031e06@i2pn2.org>
 <103c36l$1cme6$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 23:46:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1767684"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <103c36l$1cme6$5@dont-email.me>

On 6/23/25 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/23/2025 10:34 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:30:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/23/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> In particular, the pattern you are trying to claim to use, is part of
>>>> the Halting Program D, DD, and DDD, so it is BY DEFINITION incorrect.
>>> If you read the 38 pages you will see how this is incorrect. ChatGPT
>>> "understands" that any program that must be aborted at some point to
>>> prevent its infinite execution is not a halting program.
>> Such as HHH, making it not a decider (when simulated).
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> *dead obvious to any first year computer science student*
> My claim is that DDD correctly simulated by any simulating
> termination analyzer HHH that can possibly exist cannot possibly
> reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Which is irrelevent, as any machine HHH that does that isn't a Halt 
Decider, because it isn't a decider at all.

Thus, your criteria is just based on the presumption of the impossible, 
and the equivocation of what you are talking about.

Those are just the tools of pathological liars.