Re: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis

On 6/24/2025 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/23/25 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/23/2025 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/23/25 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/23/2025 10:34 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:30:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/23/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

In particular, the pattern you are trying to claim to use, is part of
the Halting Program D, DD, and DDD, so it is BY DEFINITION incorrect.

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).
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
*dead obvious to any first year computer science student*
My claim is that DDD correctly simulated by any simulating
termination analyzer HHH that can possibly exist cannot possibly
reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>
>
>
>

>
Which is irrelevent, as any machine HHH that does that isn't a Halt Decider, because it isn't a decider at all.
>

>
You aren't bothering to think that through at all. Every HHH
that correctly simulates N instructions of DDD where N < ∞:
(a) Correctly simulates N instructions of DDD
(b) returns some value to its caller.

 Right, but N < ∞ is not ALL, and thus not a "Correct Simulation"

It is incorrect to call a correct partial simulation
incorrect.
HHH does correctly determine that DDD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
final halt state if it were to correctly simulate ∞
instructions of DDD.
It does this using a form of mathematical induction
that takes a finite number of steps.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
Every first year CS student knows that DDD simulated
by any hypothetical HHH cannot possibly reach its own
simulated "return" statement final halt state.
Your degrees in electrical engineering may have never
given you as much software engineering skill as a first
year CS student.

but only a PARTIAL simulation, and every one of those HHH's create a DIFFERENT DDD, where there is a N < M such that the correct simulation of THAT input will reach a final state, and thus shows that it is a halting input.
 If DDD doesn't include the code for HHH, then you can't use an N large enough to reach the call instruction, as you can't correctly simulate the code in the input as the code needed isn't *IN* the input.
 Thus, you claim is just a lie by equivocation, you think you have only one input because you exclude the code of HHH, so that part is the same, but you also include the code of HHH (as part of the same memory space but isn't actually in the input, so not really accessable in the input).
 Your insistance on this just shows you are just a stupid pathological liar.
 

>

Thus, your criteria is just based on the presumption of the impossible, and the equivocation of what you are talking about.
>
Those are just the tools of pathological liars.

>
>

 

Your gross ignorance does not even show that I am incorrect.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer