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

On 2025-06-25 15:42:36 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/25/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-24 14:39:52 +0000, olcott said:
 

*ChatGPT and I agree that*
The directly executed DDD() is merely the first step of
otherwise infinitely recursive emulation that is terminated
at its second step.

 No matter who agrees, the directly executed DDD is mote than
merely the first step of otherwise infinitely recursive
emulation that is terminated at its second step. Not much
more but anyway. After the return of HHH(DDD) there is the
return from DDD which is the last thing DDD does before its
termination.

 *HHH(DDD) the input to HHH specifies non-terminating behavior*
The fact that DDD() itself halts does not contradict that
because the directly executing DDD() cannot possibly be an
input to HHH in the Turing machine model of computation,
thus is outside of the domain of HHH.

The input in HHH(DDD) is the same DDD that is executed in DDD()
so the behaviour specified by the input is the behavour of
directly executed DDD, a part of which is the behaour of the
HHH that DDD calls.
If HHH does not report about DDD but instead reports about itself
or its own actions it is not a partial halt decideer nor a partial
termination analyzer, as those are not allowed to report on their
own behavour more than "cannot determine".
--
Mikko