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 10:32:09 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 50 Message-ID: <103g8lp$2ks4d$1@dont-email.me> References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me> <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org> <103ag9k$10fmp$1@dont-email.me> <7b01bff1fe560095410422094a05ccac24c9fa7a@i2pn2.org> <103bodf$1a3c8$1@dont-email.me> <1b5b8f6a6c809724740bc68be167c5d535031e06@i2pn2.org> <103c3ir$1cme6$6@dont-email.me> <2d41ccbe7effb0813b82db178812d695d8884c90@i2pn2.org> <103cgtn$1gvif$2@dont-email.me> <587683d619382eee02219afcfb95b5247c984bb8@i2pn2.org> <103ebi6$22250$3@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 09:32:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a6ef2776498780f57a54aabc41c50d80"; logging-data="2781325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+e/3oKoY5ZNIzpdbmMAo3d" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:mQ3+BBXF/d2mtdo943bLbqk6bNg= On 2025-06-24 14:09:10 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/24/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:28:23 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/23/2025 2:58 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Mon, 23 Jun 2025 12:40:43 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/23/2025 10:34 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:30:07 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> >>>>>>> If you read the 38 pages you will see how this is incorrect. ChatGPT >>>>>>> "understands" that any program that must be aborted at some point to >>>>>>> prevent its infinite execution is not a halting program. >>>>>> Such as HHH, making it not a decider (when simulated). >>>>>> >>>>> My claim is that >>>> [blah blah non sequitur] >>>> Well MY claim is that HHH simulated HHH (itself) doesn't halt. >>>> >>>>> obvious >>>> You know what, it actually IS obvious that HHH can't simulate past the >>>> call to HHH. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk. >>>> >>> Thus when HHH is simulating DDD and DDD calls HHH(DDD) the outer HHH >>> does simulate itself simulating DDD. >> Sure, it simulates *into* the call, but it never returns, which is >> precisely why you abort it. >> >> [more irrelevant stuff] > > > void DDD() > { > HHH(DDD); > return; > } > > *This is the question that HHH(DDD) correctly answers* > Can DDD correctly simulated by any termination analyzer > HHH that can possibly exist reach its own "return" statement > final halt state? Answering that question prevents HHH(DDD) from answering any other question because it can only answer one question. A termination analyzer is required to answer a different question, which HHH(DDD) does not. Therefore HHH is not a termination analyzer. -- Mikko