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

On 6/24/25 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

Sure it is, it isn't the FULL answer.
I guess you think A, B, C. is a correct recitation of the alphabet.

 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.
 

But that isn't the question. The question is "Does the program the input represents Halt?"

It does this using a form of mathematical induction
that takes a finite number of steps.

Nope, only if "a form" includes incorrect forms.

 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.

The problem is you don't have *A* DDD in that case, you have a whole set of them.
Without including the HHH that a given DDD is built on, you can't simulate it past the call instruction,

 Your degrees in electrical engineering may have never
given you as much software engineering skill as a first
year CS student.

You clearly don't understand my skill level, but then I suspect I am so far above you that you couldn't understand some of my code. For instance, I am the person the head of the software department at my work comes to when he has issues with programming. How many of YOUR coworkers treat you as a prime resource for computer knowledge.
It seems that YOU are the one that doesn't understand the first year CS material.
Note, my MASTER'S degree is in combinded Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and I did a number of courses that you should consider computer related. As I remember, your degree isn't even a computer science degree.

 

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.
 

Sure I have, you are just too stupid to undetstand it, because you seem to have a pathological defect that blocks your understanding,
The fact that you can't show justification for your claims with citations to any reputable source, only your vague reference to simple material (that you don't seem to actually know).