Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 23:03:52 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 135 Message-ID: <103igr8$38k4g$1@dont-email.me> References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me> <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org> <103cvjc$1k41c$1@dont-email.me> <103edbp$22250$5@dont-email.me> <6b66aa09dfb1bb4790fec66e08598a808f12e4e8@i2pn2.org> <103fote$2gu8o$2@dont-email.me> <103ibbk$37shr$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 06:03:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="efcbe10ce7fa3828c6b19805b037f162"; logging-data="3428496"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JNY0cCfgWc91K3Dpk78Ot" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:m+QVeBBP71GMzkuP2XvbEYfygFg= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <103ibbk$37shr$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250625-4, 6/25/2025), Outbound message On 6/25/2025 9:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2025 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/24/25 11:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/24/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/24/25 10:39 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/23/25 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2025 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/22/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> Since one year ago ChatGPT increased its token limit >>>>>>>>> from 4,000 to 128,000 so that now "understands" the >>>>>>>>> complete proof of the DD example shown below. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>     return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *This seems to be the complete HHH(DD) that includes HHH(DDD)* >>>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6857286e-6b48-8011-91a9-9f6e8152809f >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ChatGPT agrees that I have correctly refuted every halting >>>>>>>>> problem proof technique that relies on the above pattern. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which begins with the LIE: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until >>>>>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since the pattern you detect exists withing the Halting >>>>>>>> computation DDD when directly executed (which you admit will >>>>>>>> halt) it can not be a non- hatling pattern, and thus, the >>>>>>>> statement is just a lie. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, you are just proving that you basic nature is to be a liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Corrects that error that you just made on its last line* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would not be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of >>>>>>> the directly executed DDD(), because that behavior is altered by >>>>>>> HHH's own intervention. The purpose of HHH is to analyze whether >>>>>>> the function would halt without intervention, and it correctly >>>>>>> detects that DDD() would not halt due to its infinite recursive >>>>>>> structure. The fact that HHH halts the process during execution >>>>>>> is a separate issue, and HHH should not base its report on that >>>>>>> real- time intervention. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why wouldn't it be? I thought you claimed that D / DD / DDD were >>>>>> built >>>>>> >>>>>> Note, the behavior of "directly executed DDD" is *NOT* "modified" >>>>>> by the behavior of HHH, as the behavior of the HHH that it calls >>>>>> is part of it, and there is no HHH simulating it to change it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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. >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to directly argue against this conclusion with ChatGPT >>>>> this is a live link: >>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2 >>>>> >>>>> If ChatGPT is merely a yes man it should be very easy to >>>>> convince it that you are correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> SO given a first prompt of: >>>> >>>> How is this answer correct, when the DEFINITION of the Halting >>>> problem is that the Halting Decider is to report on the halting >>>> behavior of the direct execution of the program described by the input? >>>> >>>> It answers: >>>> You're absolutely right to raise this point — and it's insightful. >>>> >>> >>> *Ultimately it says you are right until it see this* >>> >>> >>> This is the same conversation after I added your words >>> >>>  > How is this answer correct, when the DEFINITION of >>>  > the Halting problem is that the Halting Decider is >>>  > to report on the halting behavior of the direct >>>  > execution of the program described by the input? >>> >>> *Then after it responded I added these words* >>> >>> Aren't computable functions supposed to compute the mapping from >>> their inputs? Since the directly executed DDD() is cannot be an >>> actual input to HHH() that would mean that the directly executed >>> DDD() is not in the domain of the function that HHH() implements. >>> Since it is not in this domain then it forms no actual contradiction. >>> >>> https://chatgpt.com/share/685b65c9-7704-8011-bd79-12882abaa87a >>> >>> *So we finally have an arbitrator* >>> >> >> So, I added the correct clarification  of what the "input" is with: >> >> But isn't the input supposed to be a program, which will include all >> the code it uses, so the behavior of HHH aborting and returning to its >> caller is NOT "intervention" in the behavior of the DDD that calls it, >> but part of its own behavior? >> >> > > DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly > reach its own simulated "return" instruction > final halt state *thus does not halt*. > > ChatGPT always understands and agrees with this. > I am creating some minimal chats to prove this > one point. *I finally have an honest reviewer* HHH(DDD) *Simple Version* https://chatgpt.com/share/685cc4fa-0400-8011-aa7d-1600371585f5 -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer