Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The halting problem as defined is a category error --- Flibble is correct Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 09:55:48 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 30 Message-ID: <105fj24$2eaf2$3@dont-email.me> References: <105bdps$1g61u$1@dont-email.me> <105c0lk$1k7ip$1@dont-email.me> <105c22v$1k9r9$3@dont-email.me> <105c5rt$1l4j7$1@dont-email.me> <105cddu$1r7mi$1@dont-email.me> <35481692c9b805cd713086659451ee8a456d3d16@i2pn2.org> <105dfre$228o8$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:55:49 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="daa3ed1f2b4b314a68a993f4c6b9b36d"; logging-data="2566626"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QaMNQPVsNCQeSIm6EVGKl" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:zmxmbwJAp6bfuwXqjZuTbxYaDYo= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: <105dfre$228o8$1@dont-email.me> Op 18.jul.2025 om 14:48 schreef olcott: > On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:01:16 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/17/2025 7:52 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> >>>> LOL - that's a /chatbot/ telling you how great you are!! >>>> I guess it's not surprising that you would lap up such "praise", since >>>> it's the best you can get. >>>> So... if you're really counting chatbots as understanding your >>>> argument, >>> >>> They have conclusively proven that they do understand. >> Proven? There's no understanding happening, it's just statistics. >> >>> The above is all that I give them and they figure out on their own that >>> the non-halting behavior pattern is caused by recursive simulation. >>> Not a single person here acknowledged that in the last three years. This >>> seems to be prove that my reviewers are flat out dishonest. > >> That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that HHH cannot simulate >> DDD past the call to HHH. > > Why do you persist in this damned lie after I > have conclusively proved that HHH does simulate > itself simulating DDD? > Probably because half the truth is a lie. You showed an incomplete simulation of HHH by itself. It aborts before it reaches the final halt state, even when we know that the simulated HHH has a final halt state when it aborts and returns to DDD.