Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method

Op 01.jul.2025 om 13:52 schreef olcott:

On 7/1/2025 3:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.jul.2025 om 03:34 schreef olcott:

On 6/30/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 22:39:10 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 6/29/25 3:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 15:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

Remember, the simulator must be simulating the INPUT, and thus to go
past the call HHH instruction, the code must be part of the input, and
the input needs to be a constant.

No. If HHH is simulating DDD then HHH can detect a call to itself being
passed DDD within DDD and can assert at that point that the input is
non-
halting.
>
/Flibble

>
And thus isn't simu;ating THE INPUT, and that the input isn't a PROGRAM.
>
Also, what if DDD is using a copy of HHH, as per the proof program,
which might have variations in the code.
>
Sorry, just shows you don't understand the problem.

>
No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to completion if it can
determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts.
>
/Flibble

>
Right, but the program of the input DOES halt.
>

>
The directly executed DDD() *IS NOT AN INPUT*
Directly executed Turing machines have always been
outside of the domain of any function computed by
a Turing machine therefore directly executed Turing
machines have never contradicted the decision of
any halt decider.
>
Halt deciders compute the mapping from the behavior
that their finite string inputs actually specifies.
>
>

>
The input is a pointer to a 'finite string' that includes the code of DDD and all functions called by it, in particular including the code to abort and halt.

 *I keep correcting you on this and you keep ignoring my correction*

Trying to correct a correct statement is not very professional.

The measure is DDD simulated by HHH reaching its simulated "return"
statement final halt state. HHH continues to simulated DDD as a
pure simulator (that also simulates itself simulating DDD) until
HHH sees the non-terminating pattern.

As usual claims without evidence.
No, the measure for halting behaviour is reaching the end when executed without disturbance. Any disturbance, such as switching off the computer, or aborting the simulation (, or changing the initialisation such as when cheating with the Root variable) does not count.
Exactly the same input has been proven to specify a halting program by world-class simulators and direct execution.
Therefore, HHH is wrong when it thinks there is a non-terminating pattern.
There is no such pattern, there is only a finite recursion.
The reason for this failure of HHH is that it does not count its own conditional branch instructions.
You keep ignoring these corrections to your statements.

 

Therefore, even a beginner can see that this input specifies a halting program. That your HHH cannot see that, does not change the specification.

 Five chatbots all agree that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
non-terminating recursive emulation even though DDD() halts.

Even more professional experts agree that halting behaviour is specified by the input and that HHH is wrong.
We know how easy it is to cheat with chatbots, so what counts more?