Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:46:25 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 73 Message-ID: <103g9gh$2l1p3$1@dont-email.me> References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me> <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org> <103cvjc$1k41c$1@dont-email.me> <103edbp$22250$5@dont-email.me> <103f0j1$27r6j$1@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 09:46:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a6ef2776498780f57a54aabc41c50d80"; logging-data="2787107"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/WdeKc/9xn75q8YmeOAFm" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:My1qRWJ/KZk4Ycjq44vw49aSY8Q= On 2025-06-24 20:08:02 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson said: > On 6/24/2025 7:39 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. > > Can blowing the stack be considered a halt decider as well? ;^) Blowing the stack means that the program does not do what it should regardless whether halting or non-halting is required. -- Mikko