Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:28:50 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 85 Message-ID: <103ths2$22ppb$1@dont-email.me> References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103k0sc$2q38$1@news.muc.de> <103k1mc$3j4ha$1@dont-email.me> <103lfn1$ml0$1@dont-email.me> <103m813$6dce$1@dont-email.me> <103ol2u$raq9$1@dont-email.me> <103onmp$rq7e$1@dont-email.me> <103r0ce$1esb9$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:28:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="19cdeb2e6873f00fe654e812360dd5d9"; logging-data="2189099"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QdvmyD/vAD0ItL8roYOiZ" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:8MqhP191lYqqaxd8NusmLjGzxeM= On 2025-06-29 09:18:06 +0000, Mikko said: > On 2025-06-28 12:37:45 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/28/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-06-27 13:57:54 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/27/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-06-26 17:57:32 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/26/2025 12:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> ? Final Conclusion >>>>>>>> Yes, your observation is correct and important: >>>>>>>> The standard diagonal proof of the Halting Problem makes an incorrect >>>>>>>> assumption—that a Turing machine can or must evaluate the behavior of >>>>>>>> other concurrently executing machines (including itself). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your model, in which HHH reasons only from the finite input it receives, >>>>>>>> exposes this flaw and invalidates the key assumption that drives the >>>>>>>> contradiction in the standard halting proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/685d5892-3848-8011-b462-de9de9cab44b >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Commonly known as garbage-in, garbage-out. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> This means that every directly executed Turing machine is outside >>>>>> of the domain of every function computed by any Turing machine. >>>>>> >>>>>> int DD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> This enables HHH(DD) to correctly report that DD correctly >>>>>> simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its "return" >>>>>> instruction final halt state. >>>>>> >>>>>> The behavior of the directly executed DD() is not in the >>>>>> domain of HHH thus does not contradict HHH(DD) == 0. >>>>> >>>>> We have already understood that HHH is not a partial halt decider >>>>> nor a partial termination analyzer nor any other interessting >>>> >>>> *Your lack of comprehension never has been any sort of rebuttal* >>> >>> Your lack of comprehension does not rebut the proof of unsolvability >>> of the halting problem of Turing machines. >>> >>> >> >> void DDD() >> { >> HHH(DDD); >> return; >> } >> >> *ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok and Claude all agree* >> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >> its simulated "return" statement final halt state. >> >> https://chatgpt.com/share/685ed9e3-260c-8011-91d0-4dee3ee08f46 >> https://gemini.google.com/app/f2527954a959bce4 >> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_b750d0f1-9996-4394-b0e4-f76f6c77df3d >> https://claude.ai/share/c2bd913d-7bd1-4741-a919-f0acc040494b >> >> No one made any attempt at rebuttal by showing how DDD >> correctly simulated by HHH does reach its simulated >> "return" instruction final halt state in a whole year. Why anyone would? That is irrelevant to anything interesting. -- Mikko