Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof

On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:

https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e
 

Since you LIE with the following statement;
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts, since HHH DOES return 0 as you stipulated, this statement is just a lie of asserting the existance of a condition that doesn't exist.
Note, its first conclusion was:
Both analyzers correctly identify the termination behavior, demonstrating that the halting problem's undecidability doesn't prevent practical termination analysis in specific cases where patterns can be detected.
Note the conditional WHERE PATTERS CAN BE DETECTED. Since there is no correct pattern, HHH can't detect what doesn't exist, and thus if it ACTUALLY did what you claimed was its algorithm, it would run forever and fail to be a decider.
So, all you are doing is proving that you logic is based on lying, and that AI isn't smart enough yet to detect that lie.