Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the
 conventional HP proof
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 08:54:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <41d26d425c9bba66163558c4a045cd90abf9cf03@i2pn2.org>
References: <1049cr4$10io1$1@dont-email.me>
 <c561a75ab41d6eb31be50a708c1d9e385856c025@i2pn2.org>
 <1049jdi$11mmt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:21:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3479965"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <1049jdi$11mmt$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/4/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

Says what?

What about UTMs? They are Turing Machies, and there output *IS* the 
behavior of the Directly executed Turing Machine.

Is arithmatic also outside of the domain of every Turing Machine since 
"numbers" can't be given to Turing Machines?

>> 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.
>>
> 
> 
>> Note, its first conclusion was:
>>
>> Both analyzers correctly identify the termination behavior, 
>> demonstrating that the halting problem's undecidability doesn't 
>> prevent practical termination analysis in specific cases where 
>> patterns can be detected.
>>
> 
> Ah great so you didn't totally ignore what it said.

Yes, and I point out your errors, which YOU just totally ignore, as you 
can't handle the truth.

> 
>> Note the conditional WHERE PATTERS CAN BE DETECTED. Since there is no 
>> correct pattern, HHH can't detect what doesn't exist, and thus if it 
>> ACTUALLY did what you claimed was its algorithm, it would run forever 
>> and fail to be a decider.
>>
> 
> It also said that it does detect this pattern itself.
> It put that on its second page.

Only because you told it a LIE that HHH DOES detect such a pattern.

> 
> *Execution Trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH*
> When HHH(DD) simulates DD:
> 1. HHH begins simulating DD
> 2. DD calls HHH(DD) - this creates a recursive simulation
> 3. HHH detects that simulating DD leads to DD calling HHH(DD) again
> 4. This creates an infinite recursive pattern: DD→HHH(DD)→DD→HHH(DD)→...

Right, it used your LIE that this pattern is a non-halting patttern, 
whne it isn't

> 
>> So, all you are doing is proving that you logic is based on lying, and 
>> that AI isn't smart enough yet to detect that lie.
> 
> Not at all. This is merely you not paying close enough attention.
> 

Nope, YOU are the one with the problem.

Note, you have yet to actually answer any of my refutations, because you 
just can't.

Your world is just based on lies.