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

On 6/23/25 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2025 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:

Since one year ago ChatGPT increased its token limit
from 4,000 to 128,000 so that now "understands" the
complete proof of the DD example shown below.
>
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}
>
*This seems to be the complete HHH(DD) that includes HHH(DDD)*
https://chatgpt.com/share/6857286e-6b48-8011-91a9-9f6e8152809f
>
ChatGPT agrees that I have correctly refuted every halting
problem proof technique that relies on the above pattern.
>
>

>
Which begins with the LIE:
>
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern.
>
>
Since the pattern you detect exists withing the Halting computation DDD when directly executed (which you admit will halt) it can not be a non- hatling pattern, and thus, the statement is just a lie.
>
Sorry, you are just proving that you basic nature is to be a liar.

 *Corrects that error that you just made on its last line*
 It would not be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the directly executed DDD(), because that behavior is altered by HHH's own intervention. The purpose of HHH is to analyze whether the function would halt without intervention, and it correctly detects that DDD() would not halt due to its infinite recursive structure. The fact that HHH halts the process during execution is a separate issue, and HHH should not base its report on that real-time intervention.
 https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
 >

Why wouldn't it be? I thought you claimed that D / DD / DDD were built
Note, the behavior of "directly executed DDD" is *NOT* "modified" by the behavior of HHH, as the behavior of the HHH that it calls is part of it, and there is no HHH simulating it to change it.
The change that HHH does by aborting it simulation just shows that its simulation is not correct.
You seem to be exhibiting a psychosis where you think that the HHH that is part of DDD is actually outside of it.
I guess you just don't understand that a program includes all the code that it uses, and the behavior of that code is part of its behavior.
Is that how you got out of ylur kiddie port charges, you convinced them that you were too mentally unstable to be responsible for your actions, at it wasn't you that had the porn, but the God that was with you?