Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof

On 7/5/2025 7:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:

https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
>

>
Since you LIE with the following statement;
>
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
>
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts,

>
Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.
>

 Says what?
 What about UTMs? They are Turing Machies, and there output *IS* the behavior of the Directly executed Turing Machine.
 

To the best of my knowledge the behavior of the correct
simulation of an input is the same as its direct execution
except for the halting problem counter example input. The
"received view" of this is to simply give up on this input.
I did do better than that.

Is arithmatic also outside of the domain of every Turing Machine since "numbers" can't be given to Turing Machines?
 

since HHH DOES return 0 as you stipulated, this statement is just a lie of asserting the existance of a condition that doesn't exist.
>

>
>

Note, its first conclusion was:
>
Both analyzers correctly identify the termination behavior, demonstrating that the halting problem's undecidability doesn't prevent practical termination analysis in specific cases where patterns can be detected.
>

>
Ah great so you didn't totally ignore what it said.

 Yes, and I point out your errors, which YOU just totally ignore, as you can't handle the truth.
 

>

Note the conditional WHERE PATTERS CAN BE DETECTED. Since there is no correct pattern, HHH can't detect what doesn't exist, and thus if it ACTUALLY did what you claimed was its algorithm, it would run forever and fail to be a decider.
>

>
It also said that it does detect this pattern itself.
It put that on its second page.

 Only because you told it a LIE that HHH DOES detect such a pattern.
 

>
*Execution Trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH*
When HHH(DD) simulates DD:
1. HHH begins simulating DD
2. DD calls HHH(DD) - this creates a recursive simulation
3. HHH detects that simulating DD leads to DD calling HHH(DD) again
4. This creates an infinite recursive pattern: DD→HHH(DD)→DD→HHH(DD)→...

 Right, it used your LIE that this pattern is a non-halting patttern, whne it isn't
 

You can't gaslight me on this any more.
Every chatbot found this pattern on its own without prompting.

>

So, all you are doing is proving that you logic is based on lying, and that AI isn't smart enough yet to detect that lie.

>
Not at all. This is merely you not paying close enough attention.
>

 Nope, YOU are the one with the problem.
 Note, you have yet to actually answer any of my refutations, because you just can't.
 Your world is just based on lies.

Maybe the doctrine that they teach at your church is
that you can get away with lies and Revelation 21:8 does
not apply to you. I am not taking that chance.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer