On 2025-10-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:You say all the making sure that you fail toOn 10/15/2025 4:00 PM, olcott wrote:Unfortunately, all you got out of it is a bunch of hand-waving argumentsOn 10/15/2025 3:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:>On 2025-10-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:>Please think this all the way through without making any guesses.>
>
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
This sentence must end with nothing other than "until that input
terminates".
>
Otherwise the simulation is not complete and correct.
>(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:>
abort simulation and return 0.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement:
return 1.
(c) If HHH must abort its simulation to prevent its own non-termination
then HHH is correct to abort this simulation and return 0.
HHH is correct to abort the simulation because if it doesn't do that,
it will not terminate. All halting deciders that incorporate simulation
as a tool must break out of simulation at some point in order not to be
tripped up by inputs that fail to terminate.
>
Great I just tested this and ChatGPT 5.0 and Gemini get
the wrong answer without (c). ChatGPT 4.0, Claude AI
and Grok all got this same answer without (c) and
without being told not to guess.
>Without breaking out of the simulation, it would not be possible>
for HHH(Infinite_Loop) or HHH(Infinite_Recursion) to decide correctly
that the return value should be zero.
>
Yes.
>However, nothing is effective against the diagonal input.>
>
Unless we go be the behavior that the semantics
of the specification language specifies as the
ultimate judge.
>>What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?>
Not within the stipulated axioms when (c) is invoked.
>The set of possible solutions is the empty set.>
>
3x + y = 5
6x + 2y = 3
>
What pairs <x, y> satisfy these equations?
>
HHH(DD) not having a solution is no different from simultaneous
equations in n variables not having a solution.
>
Elementary school children can work with these.
>
Its deeper than that. See my other post.
>
I didn't get the correct understanding by being
a brilliant computer scientist. I got it by focusing
on how pathological self-reference effects truth.
I did this with an OCD like focus of concentration
for 28 years.
which amount to "believe me when I say that halting is analogous to the
Liar Paradox" and "incorrect questions", and a C project whose behavior
you don't properly understand yourself, and misconstrue as supporting
your narratives.
In a recent post you reveal that you still believe in the misconception
that the abstract halting function is ill-defined; i.e. that the
background assumption in the halting problem that every Turing Machine
(or recursive function) either halts or not, is flawed.
Due to your anterograde amnesia and generally declining cognitive
abilities, you have once again regressed.
Just weeks ago, you acknowledged that when a certain decider
is wrong on a diagonal case, /another/ decider can correctly decide
the case. So it looked like you are finally "getting" that.
Unfortunately,you are back again on the program of arguing that there
exist undecidable cases: machines whose halting status is incomputable
because they inherently don't have one.
You're basically a nearly complete idiot, except for your ability to
string together sentences containing the right words pertaining to the
subject matter.
If the world needed a crank to rant about the halting problem,
a 100 line Python program linked to an AI cloud service could
do the job better than you.
In the top of my new post [The Halting Problem is Incoherent]I can count using about three fingers the items for which
I show exactly how to overcome Quine's objection to the
you've ever shown "exactly how", and that's being generous.
Yes; you've correctly identified that when you have a simulating H,
whether it is purely simulating, or contains abort logic, for one reason
or another, its simulation of D never reaches the point where the
simulated H returns to the simulated D, and D is able to "behave
opposite".
You have milked completely unwarranted conclusions from that
observation, unfortunately, and whenever objections are raised to your
conclusions, you assume that people must be too stupid to be aware
of that observation, otherwise they would come to the same cranky
conclusions.
understand semantic properties of finite strings
that correctly determine the behavior of the input
to HHH(DD).
It wasn't until I got into semantic logical entailment
that ChatGPT understood that I was correct in its final
analysis on the last page.
The Halting Problem is Incoherent
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396510896_The_Halting_Problem_is_Incoherent
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.