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: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 21:58:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: <103l1d7$3tktb$1@dont-email.me> References: <103acoo$vp7v$1@dont-email.me> <728b9512cbf8dbf79931bfd3d5dbed265447d765@i2pn2.org> <103cvjc$1k41c$1@dont-email.me> <103edbp$22250$5@dont-email.me> <103g91n$2kugi$1@dont-email.me> <103h5dc$2rinm$4@dont-email.me> <103j6li$3dbba$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 04:58:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a5e8bf149ad22c63d77dbd8bd904cd54"; logging-data="4117419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/P1nMXTuVQ6ob8gQCmBIh8" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:q0uMD4/7TQYUY4967wrehUFNvAk= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250626-6, 6/26/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <103j6li$3dbba$1@dont-email.me> 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. This means that every directly executed Turing machine is outside of the domain of every function computed by any Turing machine. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer