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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 04. Jul 2025, 23:08:49
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1049jdi$11mmt$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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,
Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.

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.
 
Ah great so you didn't totally ignore what it said.

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.
 
It also said that it does detect this pattern itself.
It put that on its second page.
*Execution Trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH*
When HHH(DD) simulates DD:
1. HHH begins simulating DD
2. DD calls HHH(DD) - this creates a recursive simulation
3. HHH detects that simulating DD leads to DD calling HHH(DD) again
4. This creates an infinite recursive pattern: DD→HHH(DD)→DD→HHH(DD)→...

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.
Not at all. This is merely you not paying close enough attention.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Jul21:16 * Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof6olcott
4 Jul21:24 +* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof3Richard Damon
4 Jul23:08 i`* Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof2olcott
5 Jul08:43 i `- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1Fred. Zwarts
5 Jul09:46 +- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1Mikko
5 Jul10:06 `- Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof1Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal