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

Op 27.jun.2025 om 06:26 schreef olcott:

On 6/26/2025 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.jun.2025 om 17:42 schreef olcott:

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.
>

>
Why repeating claims that have been proven incorrect.
The input to HHH is a pointer to code, that includes the code of HHH, including the code to abort and halt. Therefore, it specifies a halting program.

 *No, you are using an incorrect measure*
*I have addressed this too many times*

... with invalid measures.
The measure is not whether the simulator can do its job, the measure is what the input specifies.

 DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own simulated "return" statement
final halt state *No matter what HHH does*
Therefore the input to HHH(DD) unequivocally
specifies non-halting behavior.
 

If the simulator cannot analyse this specification, that is a failure of the simulator, not the behaviour specified in the input.
'No matter what HHH does' is irrelevant and misleading. HHH is programmed to do only one thing. That defines the input.
*That* input specifies a program, including the HHH that aborts and returns to DDD, after which DDD halts. (Or are you still cheating with the Root variable, to make the simulated HHH different from the simulating HHH?)
That HHH is programmed to be blind for that behaviour does not change the specification.
A failure to process the input correctly, does not change the specification of the input.