Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:26:52 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 52 Message-ID: <103g8bs$2kphp$1@dont-email.me> References: <1037cr1$1aja4$1@dont-email.me> <1037v6h$1934$1@news.muc.de> <10394i0$j159$1@dont-email.me> <103b07t$1476t$1@dont-email.me> <103br3v$1a3c8$5@dont-email.me> <103donl$1tm3c$1@dont-email.me> <103ee8f$22250$10@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 09:26:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a6ef2776498780f57a54aabc41c50d80"; logging-data="2778681"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Ddf7cH52QTsXFLgVX0WCC" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:xt1peRfCL5Raq00wlRKuTXMicRE= On 2025-06-24 14:55:11 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/24/2025 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-23 15:16:14 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/23/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-22 14:38:56 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/21/2025 11:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>> return Halt_Status; >>>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6857335b37a08191a077d57039fa4a76 >>>>>>> ChatGPT agrees that I have correctly refuted every >>>>>>> halting problem proof technique that relies on the above >>>>>>> pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's neither here nor there.  The plain fact is you have NOT refuted >>>>>> any proof technique.  How could you, you don't even understand what is >>>>>> meant by proof? >>>>> >>>>> A proof is any sequence of steps such that its conclusion >>>>> can be correctly determined to be necessarily true. >>>> >>>> False. There are other requirements. Every sentence of the sequence, >>>> not just the last one, must either be a premise or follow from >>>> earlier ones with an acceptable inference rule. >>> >>> There is a subset of proofs that have this requirement. >>> They typically are of the form that a conclusion is >>> proved definitely true within a set of assumptions. >>> >>> Another form of this same proof only has expressions >>> of language known to be true as its premises. >> >> If the set of the premises is not the same it is not the same proof. > > When a proof has known facts all of its premises thenn > its conclusion is proven definitely true when it is proven. Nevertheless, the proofa are not the same if their sets of premises are not the same. -- Mikko