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: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 19:10:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <791b043a2d6339f11b59047cf73530a615b44618@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> <103j6li$3dbba$1@dont-email.me>
 <103l1d7$3tktb$1@dont-email.me> <103lf9c$j25$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m99g$6dce$3@dont-email.me> <103olot$rfba$1@dont-email.me>
 <103os6c$rq7e$10@dont-email.me>
 <aa791c25d470a6f14c55d960dc3344f4cfefda97@i2pn2.org>
 <103po66$13ceo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 23:12:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2487661"; 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: <103po66$13ceo$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/28/25 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/28/2025 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/28/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/28/2025 7:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-27 14:19:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/27/2025 1:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-27 02:58:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2025 5:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-25 15:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-24 14:39:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *ChatGPT and I agree that*
>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed DDD() is merely the first step of
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise infinitely recursive emulation that is terminated
>>>>>>>>>>> at its second step.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No matter who agrees, the directly executed DDD is mote than
>>>>>>>>>> merely the first step of otherwise infinitely recursive
>>>>>>>>>> emulation that is terminated at its second step. Not much
>>>>>>>>>> more but anyway. After the return of HHH(DDD) there is the
>>>>>>>>>> return from DDD which is the last thing DDD does before its
>>>>>>>>>> termination.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *HHH(DDD) the input to HHH specifies non-terminating behavior*
>>>>>>>>> The fact that DDD() itself halts does not contradict that
>>>>>>>>> because the directly executing DDD() cannot possibly be an
>>>>>>>>> input to HHH in the Turing machine model of computation,
>>>>>>>>> thus is outside of the domain of HHH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input in HHH(DDD) is the same DDD that is executed in DDD()
>>>>>>>> so the behaviour specified by the input is the behavour of
>>>>>>>> directly executed DDD, a part of which is the behaour of the
>>>>>>>> HHH that DDD calls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If HHH does not report about DDD but instead reports about itself
>>>>>>>> or its own actions it is not a partial halt decideer nor a partial
>>>>>>>> termination analyzer, as those are not allowed to report on their
>>>>>>>> own behavour more than "cannot determine".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Functions computed by Turing Machines are required to compute
>>>>>>> the mapping from their inputs and not allowed to take other
>>>>>>> executing Turing machines as inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no restriction on the functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> counter factual.
>>>>
>>>> That is not a magic spell to create a restriction on functions.
>>>>
>>>>>> A Turing machine is required
>>>>>> to compute the function identified in its specification and no other
>>>>>> function. For the halting problem the specification is that a halting
>>>>>> decider must compute the mapping that maps to "yes" if the 
>>>>>> computation
>>>>>> described by the input halts when directly executed.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one ever bothered to notice that because directly
>>>>> executed Turing machines cannot possibly be inputs to
>>>>> other Turing machines that these directly executed
>>>>> Turing machines have never been in the domain of any
>>>>> Turing machine.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. They are the domain of the halting problem. 
>>>
>>> That they are in the domain of the halting problem
>>> and not in the domain of any Turing machine proves
>>> that the requirement of the halting problem is incorrect.
>>
>> No, it just says that you don't understand the concept of representation.
>>
> 
> There exists no finite number of steps where N steps of
> DDD are correctly simulated by HHH and this simulated DDD
> reaches its simulated "return" statement final halts state.
> 
> 

But there is no HHH that correctly simulates the DDD that the HHH that 
answers, in part because what you think is the DDD can't actually be 
correctly simulated at all. All you are showing is you don't know the 
defintion of the thing you are talking about.

Your logic is based on the equivalent of saying that when 1 is equal to 
3 then 2 is greater that 3

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity, and basing you claims on the 
assumption that the impossible can be done.

This just shows how utterly stupid and mentally deficient you are.

Either you have lost all sense of concience and the idea of what is 
truth, or the ability to learn anything.