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: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The halting problem as defined is a category error --- Flibble is
 correct
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 17:51:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <62cfd55355d9ddb257375bd4ed4ecb52ff5fe443@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <105dka6$231qf$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 22:30:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1231564"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <105dka6$231qf$5@dont-email.me>

On 7/18/25 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:01:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/17/2025 7:52 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>
>>>> LOL - that's a /chatbot/ telling you how great you are!!
>>>> I guess it's not surprising that you would lap up such "praise", since
>>>> it's the best you can get.
>>>> So... if you're really counting chatbots as understanding your
>>>> argument,
>>>
>>> They have conclusively proven that they do understand.
>> Proven? There's no understanding happening, it's just statistics.
>>
>>> The above is all that I give them and they figure out on their own that
>>> the non-halting behavior pattern is caused by recursive simulation.
>>> Not a single person here acknowledged that in the last three years. This
>>> seems to be prove that my reviewers are flat out dishonest.
> 
> *On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote*
>  > That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious
>  > that HHH cannot simulate DDD past the call to HHH.
> 
> *Here is complete proof 197 page execution trace*
> (1) HHH(DDD) is executed
> (2) HHH emulates DDD
> (3) DDD calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
> (4) emulated HHH emulates DDD
> (5) this DDD calls HHH(DDD) again
> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

But, the HHH(DDD) that DDD calls in (3) will ALSO abort its emulaiton 
and return to DDD, so the CORRECT eulation (not the partial one that HHH 
does) will see DDD halt.

> 
>> You just draw the wrong conclusion from it.
> 
> Joes is wrong.

No, you are, because you don't know what "correct" means.

Or what a program means, as NONE of that descirption is correct if HHH 
is not part of the input, as HHH could simulate it past point (3) as HHH 
wouldn't be part of the input that it was simulating.

So, you are just showing your stupidity.

> 
>> (Aside: what "seems" to you will convince no one. You can just call
>> everybody dishonest. Also, they are not "your reviewers".)
>>
>>>> then that implies your conditions are now met for you to publish your
>>>> results in a peer-reviewed journal.
>>> The next step is to get reviewers that are not liars.
>> Chatbots are liars?
>>
>>>> (You said that for whatever reason you had to get one (or was it two?)
>>>> reviewers on board who understand your argument - well by your own
>>>> reckoning you've not only done that - you've done better, since chatbot
>>>> approval is (IYO) free of biases etc. so is presumably worth /more/.)
>>>> Have you chosen the journal yet?
>>>>
>>> Yes the same one that published:
>>> Considered harmful was popularized among computer scientists by Edsger
>>> Dijkstra's letter "Go To Statement Considered Harmful",[3][4] published
>>> in the March 1968 Communications of the ACM (CACM)
>> Great, do keep us posted if they reply. Any relation to that paper?
>>
>>>> Meanwhile in the real world... you realise that posters here consider
>>>> this particular (chatbot based) Appeal To Authority to be beyond a
>>>> joke?
>>>>
>>> Yet they are dishonest about this in the same way that they have been
>>> dishonest about the dead obvious issue of recursive emulation for three
>>> fucking years.
>>> Truth has never ever been about credibility it has always been about
>>> sound deductive inference. If they think that Claude.ai is wrong then
>>> find its error.
>> If you were correct, you wouldn't need a chatbot as a yes-man.
>>
>>> Any fucking moron can keep repeating that they just don't believe it. If
>>> you don't find any actual error then you must be a damned liar when you
>>> say that I am wrong.
>> Word.
>>
> 
>