Re: ChatGPT and claude.ai agree that I have refuted the conventional Halting Problem proof technique ---

Op 29.jun.2025 om 15:29 schreef olcott:

On 6/29/2025 5:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 28.jun.2025 om 15:08 schreef olcott:

On 6/28/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.jun.2025 om 16:08 schreef olcott:

On 6/27/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

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,

>
*It has been doing this correctly for several years*
>

Another invalid claim without evidence.
Bugs in your program have been pointed out to you for many years, but you keep dreaming without taking notice of the facts.
The facts are that HHH does not count the conditional branch instructions, when it is simulating itself. This makes HHH blind for the specification in the input of the abort done by HHH and the halting behaviour of the program.

>
HHH reaches its "return" instruction final halt state.
>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own final halt state no matter what HHH does.
>
You are getting confused over what is being measured.
If we were measuring whether or not HHH halts then
you would be correct. *We are not measuring that*
>

You are confused. If HHH has a bug that does not allow it to reach the final halt state of its simulation, then that is not a measure for the halting behaviour specified in the input.

 If HHH had a bug then someone could have pointed out the
exact bug on the last two years that its full source has
been available.  https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

Another counter-factual claim.
The bug has been presented to you many many times. The bug is that it forgets to count the conditional branch instructions when simulating itself.
Your only rebuttal is repeating the same claims without any evidence. That does not count as rebuttal.