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

On 7/5/25 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2025 2:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.jul.2025 om 00:08 schreef olcott:

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.

>
Irrelevant, because HHH should report on its input.

 Thus you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with dbush
and many textbooks.

But "its input" is a representation of the program DDD, and the reportimg is to be on the behavior of that program.

 

This input includes the abort code and specifies a halting program.

 *That is the part that is way over your head*
If HHH was reporting on its own termination status you
would be correct.

But that code *IS* in the input that HHH simulated. Look at your big trace. As HHH simulates HHH simulating each of the instruction of DDD, it is testing if it should abort.
I guess you don't understand what you program is doing.

 HHH(DD) is reporting on whether of not DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C programming language
can possibly  reach its own simulated "return" statement.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 DDD is the simplified version of DD().

No, it SHOULD be reporting on wheter or not the CORRECT simulation (or diret execution) of this exact input will halt.
Since you HHH doesnn't do that, your criteria is just a LIE and self-contradictory, proving you are just a pathologica liar.
Since that input include the code of HHH (as you mega trace shows) that simulation will halt (again, as can be derived from your big mega trace).
I guess you are just admitting youj have no idea what the rules are of computabiity theory.

 

That is proven by direct execution of the same input, but there is no need for the HHH to know about the direct execution.
The direct execution is only a proof of the failure of HHH.
>

 *No it is not proof of failure*

Sure it is, since that is the ACTUSL question, and not your lying strawman.

The requirement that halt deciders report on things outside
of their domain (directly executed machines) has always been
bogus. All directly executed Turing machines have always been
ouside of the domain of all Turing machine based deciders.

But it isn't outside their domain, you are just showing you don't understand what yo are talking about, because you have gaslighted yourself and brainwashed yourself to ignore the actual facts and rules of the problem.

 Claude understands this and agrees and sees this as a new idea.

Only becauae you lie to it,

 

>

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.
>

>

 

Sorry, all you are doing is cementing you place at the bottom of the lake of fire after sinking yourself with your own stupid lies.