Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting
 Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 21:14:32 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c32bd6fff0113ec43e5d87353f9ee74a21459cae@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>
 <791b043a2d6339f11b59047cf73530a615b44618@i2pn2.org>
 <103pt9f$14jbv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 01:14:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2499262"; 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: <103pt9f$14jbv$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/28/25 7:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/28/2025 6:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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, 
> Proven to be counter-factual and over your head.
> 

Reallhy? By what?

Your LIES?

Based on you not knowing what your words mean.

> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
>    return;
> }
> 
> The exact same code that correctly recognizes infinite
> recursion sees this non-terminating pattern after one
> single recursive emulation.
> 

So?

The issue is that THAT input doesn't halt, even when correctly 
simulated by a UTM.

But UTM(DDD) will halt if HHH(DDD) returns an answer.

THus, you are just showing that you are just an stupid troll, that 
doesn't understand the basic rules of logic.


Try to actually PROVE something, which requires showing the ACTUALLY 
know statements that you are starting from, and then the truth 
preserving steps from them that reach to your final statement.

Your problem is you always stast with a strawman ststement, as it seems 
that is all your brain can process.