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

On 6/24/25 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2025 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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?"
>

 That may have been the answer that you memorized
yet that answer is not correct.

That *IS* what the problem states.
I guess you are just admitting that you "logic" is based on twisting words, and just flat out lying.

 

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.
>

 When every element of an infinite set has the
same non-halting property then each element also
has this same non-halting property.

But they don't have the "non-halting" property.
They only have the didn't-halt-yet property to HHH, but DO have the DO HALT property when actually correctly simulated (assuming they ARE simulatable because they include the code of the HHH they were built on).
Non-Halting is only shown by the COMPLETE behavior never reaching a final state even after an unbounded number of steps.
SInce you HHH that answer never get that far, there simulations do not show "non-halting", only not-yet-halted".

 

Without including the HHH that a given DDD is built on, you can't simulate it past the call instruction,
>

 We have already been over this too many times.

Right, and you still don't seem to get it because you don't understand what you ar4e talking about, but base your logic on equivocations.
"The Input" can't be simulated to something not in "the input"
PERIOD.
All you are doing is saying your worlds allows for blantant lies.

 

>
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

 I am only estimating how much an electrical engineer
would be exposed to actual computer science and
programming. I always thought you were an electronics
engineer.

In other words, you admit to speaking out of ignorance.
I was "kicked out" of my freshman in high-school computer course because the teacher knew I knew more than he was going to teach the class, so gave me the A and sent be to help run the computer room for the course.

 

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.
>

 I have a recent software engineering boss that
knew literally nothing about programming. Project
managers quite often have nearly zero technical
background.

So? Since you background as I remember was buisensss, it sounds like that is just a self-description of yourself.

 

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,

 *I don't see that*
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MSEE, EE, Electrical Engineering MSEE, EE,
Electrical Engineering 1978 - 1982

You need to look at the actual program. At MIT the department I was at was Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.
Your "friend" Professor Sipser teaches in that same department.

 The Ohio State University
BSEE, Electrical Engineering BSEE,
Electrical Engineering 1974 - 1978
 

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.
>

 I have had all of the computer science courses for
a computer science degree and all but one of the math
courses. I never had calculus II. That was about 100
credit hours more than the 125 that I needed to graduate.
I went 6.5 years full time including Summers.

So?
Since we are talking about the part of Computer Sciend that is actually core mathematical, your hole just perfects shows your blind spot.
And it took you 6.5 years to do a normal 4 year program?
Doesn't sound like you were doing that well.

 <snip>
 

>

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,
>

 You do not know what every first year CS student knows.
DDD simulated by HHH is only a little more complex
than infinite recursion.

No, HHH just can't simulate DDD, because it DOES abort.
An aborted simulation is NOT a correct simulation.
And you don't seem to understand that a "program" includes all its code, and thus includes the code of HHH.
Of course, here we are talking about programs in the mathematical/computation sense.

 

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).
>

 Most of my words are self-evidently true, thus verified facts.

No, they are full of equivocations.

 DDD correctly simrlated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own simulated "return" statement final
halt state *is one of these verified facts*
 

Since your HHH doesn't correctly simulate DDD, that is just a fabrication.
Somehow you don't seem to understand the difference between the finite and the unbounded, but of course, again, that is mathematical, the thing you didn't study enough of.
But that is actually stuff I learned in High School, but seems beyond you.