Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:07:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 146 Message-ID: <1040j2b$2ql69$6@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> <103rhf6$1hc53$8@dont-email.me> <0c50a8ee4efb36cef4271674792a090125187f9d@i2pn2.org> <103s40o$1m8dn$1@dont-email.me> <93801c0e35ee58f2673bea24c614e2fc683b55ce@i2pn2.org> <103sutf$1utb9$1@dont-email.me> <3cbdc10609ef73de4d91adaa33cded8cef5117f6@i2pn2.org> <103ufqg$292c0$3@dont-email.me> <17a2593ee804665b9f412c522a6f64c7618c202f@i2pn2.org> <103vdgi$2flaf$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:07:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2525e8d75a2872aa3d27b0f72aced4f"; logging-data="2970825"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19edauskBSkR7GWy2mtH2BK" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:6IAjwmWwJxOP+GKDR/CzpSRMwuM= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250701-2, 7/1/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 7/1/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/30/25 9:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2025 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/30/25 1:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> One line of C source-code is a C statement. >>>> HHH simulates six statements of DDD. >>> >>> No it doesn't, as that line of C refers to HHH, and to process that >>> line, you need to process ALL the lines in HHH. >>> >> >> Yes this is true. >> What the F did you think that I meant by: >> >> HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH... > > Except that isn't what you said HHH does! > > YOu said HHH simulated DDD until it recognizes a non-halting pattern. > > You have omitted this in your "loop" > Recursive emulation is not a loop. > It should be: > HHH simulated DDD that calls HHH, until it recognizes a non-halting > pattern, > Which results in it simulating HHH simulating DDD until it recognizes a > non-halting pattern... > Which results in it simulating HHH simulating DDD until it recognizes a > non-halting pattern... > Which results in it simulating HHH simulating DDD until it recognizes a > non-halting pattern... > Which results in it simulating HHH simulating DDD until it recognizes a > non-halting pattern... > It is more precisely accurate the way that you did it yet too confusing to get the gist of the idea of recursive emulation. > The problem is when you include that we KNOW that, since the outer HHH > *WILL* at some point abort (since you assume that will happen) that this > simulated HHH will also do that, and thus make the DDD that called it > halting. > If you are going to call impossibly reaching its final halt state halting you might as well call it also makes you breakfast in bed. > Your problem is you didn't CORRECTLY simulate the HHH that DDD calls, as > you ERRONEOUSLY assumed that it will not halt in order to claim that you > have a non-halting pattern. > When N x86 instructions of DDD are simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language then N N x86 instructions of DDD are simulated correctly. This includes HHH simulating itself simulating DDD at least once. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you unless you grossly exaggerated your competence at programming. > THe problem is whatever criteria is used to abort, is part of the code > that is being analyized, and thus you need to take that into account > when you try to prove that the pattern is non-halting. > Repeat this to yourself 500 times so that you will remember it by the time you make your next reply. *DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach* *its own simulated "return" statement final halt state* *DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach* *its own simulated "return" statement final halt state* *DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach* *its own simulated "return" statement final halt state* > Your "logic" doesn't understand how programs work and are defined, > because your "logic" comes out of your own ignorance of the field. > >> >> >>> You are just showing you don't understand the basics of how computers >>> and programs work. >>> >>>> >>>>> Note, "C" doesn't define "instructions", but operations as defined >>>>> by the abstract machine. >>>>> >>>>> The operations defined in DDD: >>>>> >>>>> Fetch the value of DDD >>>>> Pass that as a parameter to HHH >>>>> Call the funciton HHH, >>>>> Perform the operations of function HHH >>>>> Return >>>>> >>>> >>>> At the machine language level HHH correctly >>>> simulated four x86 instructions of DDD six times. >>> >>> Nope, doesn't simulate the CALL instruction. >>> >> >> Yes it does. > > Then why doesn't it show the x86 instuctions executed? > > Of the sequence points inside of the HHH that it called? > >> >> What the F did you think that I meant by: >> HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH... >> >> > > As I said, that isn't a simulation of HHH, as that isn't what HHH doess, > because it LIES about the fact that HHH, as you have defined it, *WILL* > abort and return 0, and thus every DDD will halt. > > All you are doing is proving that you don't understand what you are > talkinga about, and just refuse to look at the facts, because you are > just a pathological liar that has been brainwashed by yourself into > unconditionaly believing your own lies. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer