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

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