Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT and claude.ai agree that I have refuted the conventional
 Halting Problem proof technique ---
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:42:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3b8662849f89dd3f428a502762ff3f5eb9a3dc2d@i2pn2.org>
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> <103j1di$3bke4$1@dont-email.me>
	<103l6gv$3ul4b$2@dont-email.me> <103lj0i$14or$1@dont-email.me>
	<103m8ke$6dce$2@dont-email.me> <103oaov$oscg$3@dont-email.me>
	<103opgb$rq7e$5@dont-email.me> <103r4r0$2due$1@dont-email.me>
	<103rf39$1hc53$3@dont-email.me> <103tete$4j97$1@dont-email.me>
	<103ue94$292c0$2@dont-email.me>
	<fd40cbce9114eaddd56663578a30dcdb2ea0b86e@i2pn2.org>
	<103v0qj$2cv2u$1@dont-email.me>
	<0586e2f2dbf17cff15b6fb07e6bc9b4f7287b8ff@i2pn2.org>
	<1040hca$2ql69$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:42:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2890515"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Tue, 01 Jul 2025 06:38:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/1/2025 3:56 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:50:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/30/2025 3:40 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:33:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 
>>>>> The conditional branch instructions in HHH cannot possibly have any
>>>>> effect whatsoever on whether or not the simulated DDD reaches its
>>>>> own "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>> But of course they do. Once as part of the outermost simulator,
>>>> deter mining whether to abort, and once as part of DDD, determining
>>>> whether to return.
I'll take this as accepted.

>>>>> HHH simply simulates DDD with a pure simulator until it conclusively
>>>>> proves that its outermost simulated DDD cannot possibly reach its
>>>>> own simulated "return" statement final halt state. When it aborts
>>>>> this DDD all recursive emulations immediately stop.
>>>> Right, HHH is not a pure simulator.
>>>> The simulations would have halted if *only* the outermost HHH was
>>>> pure and did not abort.
>>> Since you know that is impossible because every instance of HHH has
>>> the exact same machine code at the same machine address why bring it
>>> up?
>> Read below.
> *There is not good reason to begin reasoning with a lie*
What lie?
Simulating DDD with a pure simulator halts, which is the hypothetical
of your pet misquote, not a pure simulator simulating DDD'(){HHH'(DDD');}.
You think that termination analysers should change all calls to more
TAs in the input to pure simulators.

>>>>   *That* is what
>>>> what Sipser's twisted-by-you words meant, not simulating a different
>>>> DDD that calls a pure simulator. The code of DDD, including HHH, is
>>>> fixed and "describes" a partial simulator; you can't in a program
>>>> magically refer to "itself", you have to arrange for the explicit
>>>> mention to fall together with its name (except in Lisp maybe).

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.