Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:09:21 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 159 Message-ID: <1040j5h$2ql69$7@dont-email.me> References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me> <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org> <103cvjc$1k41c$1@dont-email.me> <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> <103po66$13ceo$1@dont-email.me> <791b043a2d6339f11b59047cf73530a615b44618@i2pn2.org> <103pt9f$14jbv$1@dont-email.me> <103r160$1f1bd$1@dont-email.me> <103rjml$1icfh$8@dont-email.me> <103tenu$4jan$1@dont-email.me> <103uepa$29d75$1@dont-email.me> <103v1de$2cv2u$2@dont-email.me> <10406m5$7a1e$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:09:22 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2525e8d75a2872aa3d27b0f72aced4f"; logging-data="2970825"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/t86DiYwmb+cXCWH0La4zo" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3bqcxjQRr3AqvKl9tkTWS3a8CgE= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250701-2, 7/1/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <10406m5$7a1e$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 7/1/2025 3:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 01.jul.2025 om 00:00 schreef olcott: >> On 6/30/2025 11:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 30/06/2025 08:35, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 29.jun.2025 om 16:47 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/29/2025 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-06-28 23:19:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Recursive simulation is not the same as recorsive call. Consequently >>>>>> what is correct about recursive calls may be incorrect about >>>>>> recursive simulation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually from the POV of HHH it is exactly the same >>>>> as if DDD() called HHH(DDD) that simply calls DDD(). >>>>> HHH has no idea that DDD is calling itself. >>>>> >>>>> It sees DDD call the same function twice in sequence >>>>> with no conditional branch instructions inbetween the >>>>> beginning of DDD and its called to HHH(DDD). >>>>> >>>>> There are conditional branch instructions in HHH >>>>> that HHH does ignore. These are irrelevant. They >>>>> cannot possibly cause the simulated DDD to reach >>>>> its own simulated final halt state, the correct >>>>> measure of halting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Exactly these conditional branch instruction are the cause for the >>>> abort done by HHH, which then returns to DDD, which then halts. >>>> This is shown by world class smulators and also by HHH1, which does >>>> count these conditional branch instructions and, therefore, is able >>>> to reach the end of the simulation. >>> >>> HHH1 does not count the conditional branch instructions.  The >>> explanation for it reaching the end of the simulation is that >> >> HHH1(DDD)'s input does not call itself in recursive simulation >> like the input to HHH(DDD) does call itself in recursive simulation. > > Indeed, the failure of the programmer is that he thinks that a simulator > can simulate itself correctly in recursive simulation. OK I give up on you. I can't stand talking to people that insist on denying verified facts. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer