Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the
 conventional halting problem proof technique
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 17:00:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1a5a5920a02ea362258b7b85725b96eac43620f3@i2pn2.org>
References: <1037cr1$1aja4$1@dont-email.me> <1037v6h$1934$1@news.muc.de>
 <10394i0$j159$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 21:18:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1617367"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <10394i0$j159$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/22/25 10:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2025 11:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>
>>> https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6857335b37a08191a077d57039fa4a76
>>> ChatGPT agrees that I have correctly refuted every
>>> halting problem proof technique that relies on the above
>>> pattern.
>>
>> That's neither here nor there.  The plain fact is you have NOT refuted
>> any proof technique.  How could you, you don't even understand what is
>> meant by proof?
>>
> 
> A proof is any sequence of steps such that its conclusion
> can be correctly determined to be necessarily true.

And must start with KNOWN CORRECT premises, and uses only KNOQN GOOD 
operation.

Since YOU argument starts with incorrrect definitions, it is not a proof.

> 
>> You have merely deluded yourself, spending year after year failing to
>> understand the simplest elements of computation theory, something a
>> maths or computer science undergraduate grasps in a very few hours at
>> most.
>>
>> This stuff simply isn't your thing.  Instead, you could and should do
>> something worthwhile with however much longer you have to live.
>>
> 
> Then you could find one mistake, so far no one has.

Sure we have, you just ignore them, as you have demonstrated by your 
presistant refusal to answer the problem

You have actually admitted to the basic facts that show that your proof 
is just based on pathological lies, and effectively admitted that you 
know that (due to your refusal to answer the refutations).

Sorry, You do NOT have a "Right to remain silent" when the charge is 
that you statements are wrong, and the basic evidence of that is presented.

Failure to show the error in that statement is just an admissition that 
you have no response, and are admitting to the error.

You might be able to make an arguement if you had responded to a number 
of them, and there were a few outstanding, but you have failed to 
respond to the vast majority with anything besides just restating the 
error and claiming it must be right.

That is just the logical equivalent of a guilty plea.


> 
>>> -- 
>>> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
> 
>