Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!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: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 22:14:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e54a5279840ddb8664d50ed8600f28a27274d1aa@i2pn2.org>
References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me>
 <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org>
 <103ag9k$10fmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b01bff1fe560095410422094a05ccac24c9fa7a@i2pn2.org>
 <103bodf$1a3c8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1b5b8f6a6c809724740bc68be167c5d535031e06@i2pn2.org>
 <103c36l$1cme6$5@dont-email.me>
 <287b4881fe38db4f642cd68acf6e58e4fcc030e9@i2pn2.org>
 <103cqt2$1j572$1@dont-email.me>
 <95b79075acf0e286add23d3f1c0e5672fde7a66e@i2pn2.org>
 <103ecq2$22250$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 02:23:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1920200"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <103ecq2$22250$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 6/24/25 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2025 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/23/25 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2025 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/25 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/2025 10:34 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:30:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/23/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In particular, the pattern you are trying to claim to use, is 
>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>> the Halting Program D, DD, and DDD, so it is BY DEFINITION 
>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>> If you read the 38 pages you will see how this is incorrect. ChatGPT
>>>>>>> "understands" that any program that must be aborted at some point to
>>>>>>> prevent its infinite execution is not a halting program.
>>>>>> Such as HHH, making it not a decider (when simulated).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> *dead obvious to any first year computer science student*
>>>>> My claim is that DDD correctly simulated by any simulating
>>>>> termination analyzer HHH that can possibly exist cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is irrelevent, as any machine HHH that does that isn't a Halt 
>>>> Decider, because it isn't a decider at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You aren't bothering to think that through at all. Every HHH
>>> that correctly simulates N instructions of DDD where N < ∞:
>>> (a) Correctly simulates N instructions of DDD
>>> (b) returns some value to its caller.
>>
>> Right, but N < ∞ is not ALL, and thus not a "Correct Simulation"
> 
> It is incorrect to call a correct partial simulation
> incorrect.

Sure it is, it isn't the FULL answer.

I guess you think A, B, C. is a correct recitation of the alphabet.

> 
> HHH does correctly determine that DDD simulated by HHH
> cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
> final halt state if it were to correctly simulate ∞
> instructions of DDD.
> 

But that isn't the question. The question is "Does the program the input 
represents Halt?"

> It does this using a form of mathematical induction
> that takes a finite number of steps.

Nope, only if "a form" includes incorrect forms.

> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> Every first year CS student knows that DDD simulated
> by any hypothetical HHH cannot possibly reach its own
> simulated "return" statement final halt state.

The problem is you don't have *A* DDD in that case, you have a whole set 
of them.

Without including the HHH that a given DDD is built on, you can't 
simulate it past the call instruction,

> 
> Your degrees in electrical engineering may have never
> given you as much software engineering skill as a first
> year CS student.

You clearly don't understand my skill level, but then I suspect I am so 
far above you that you couldn't understand some of my code. For 
instance, I am the person the head of the software department at my work 
comes to when he has issues with programming. How many of YOUR coworkers 
treat you as a prime resource for computer knowledge.

It seems that YOU are the one that doesn't understand the first year CS 
material.

Note, my MASTER'S degree is in combinded Electrical Engineering and 
Computer Science, and I did a number of courses that you should consider 
computer related. As I remember, your degree isn't even a computer 
science degree.

> 
>> but only a PARTIAL simulation, and every one of those HHH's create a 
>> DIFFERENT DDD, where there is a N < M such that the correct simulation 
>> of THAT input will reach a final state, and thus shows that it is a 
>> halting input.
>>
>> If DDD doesn't include the code for HHH, then you can't use an N large 
>> enough to reach the call instruction, as you can't correctly simulate 
>> the code in the input as the code needed isn't *IN* the input.
>>
>> Thus, you claim is just a lie by equivocation, you think you have only 
>> one input because you exclude the code of HHH, so that part is the 
>> same, but you also include the code of HHH (as part of the same memory 
>> space but isn't actually in the input, so not really accessable in the 
>> input).
>>
>> Your insistance on this just shows you are just a stupid pathological 
>> liar.
>>
>>>
>>>> Thus, your criteria is just based on the presumption of the 
>>>> impossible, and the equivocation of what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Those are just the tools of pathological liars.
>>>
>>>
>>
> Your gross ignorance does not even show that I am incorrect.
> 

Sure I have, you are just too stupid to undetstand it, because you seem 
to have a pathological defect that blocks your understanding,

The fact that you can't show justification for your claims with 
citations to any reputable source, only your vague reference to simple 
material (that you don't seem to actually know).