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

Am Tue, 01 Jul 2025 06:38:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/1/2025 3:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:50:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/30/2025 3:40 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:33:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

 

The conditional branch instructions in HHH cannot possibly have any
effect whatsoever on whether or not the simulated DDD reaches its
own "return" instruction final halt state.

But of course they do. Once as part of the outermost simulator,
deter mining whether to abort, and once as part of DDD, determining
whether to return.

I'll take this as accepted.

HHH simply simulates DDD with a pure simulator until it conclusively
proves that its outermost simulated DDD cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement final halt state. When it aborts
this DDD all recursive emulations immediately stop.

Right, HHH is not a pure simulator.
The simulations would have halted if *only* the outermost HHH was
pure and did not abort.

Since you know that is impossible because every instance of HHH has
the exact same machine code at the same machine address why bring it
up?

Read below.

*There is not good reason to begin reasoning with a lie*

What lie?
Simulating DDD with a pure simulator halts, which is the hypothetical
of your pet misquote, not a pure simulator simulating DDD'(){HHH'(DDD');}.
You think that termination analysers should change all calls to more
TAs in the input to pure simulators.

  *That* is what
what Sipser's twisted-by-you words meant, not simulating a different
DDD that calls a pure simulator. The code of DDD, including HHH, is
fixed and "describes" a partial simulator; you can't in a program
magically refer to "itself", you have to arrange for the explicit
mention to fall together with its name (except in Lisp maybe).

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.