On 10/16/2025 4:21 AM, Mikko wrote:Note: no counter argument to this.On 2025-10-15 12:30:12 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:A problem does not entail anything, semantically or otherwise.On 2025-10-15 02:17:50 +0000, olcott said:It semantically entails U(p)
5. In shortThe halting problem does not pretend anything about U(p). It does not
The halting problem as usually formalized is syntactically consistent only because it pretends that U(p) is well-defined for every p.
even mention U(p).
The words "ptoblem" and "entail" are semantically incompatible.
Note: no counter argument to this.It requires every decider H to report on the behaviorNo, it does not. But a decider that does not answer as required
of UTM(p). When p calls H then the behavior of UTM(p)
is outside of the domain of H.
by the halting problem is not a nalting decider.
Note: no counter argument to this.When in fact they are not, thus a break from reality.That does not make sense. What "they" and what they are not?
The halting problem stipulates that they are in theThe halting problem does not stipulate. It asks for a method to
same domain. Correct semantic entailment proves that
they are not.
answer all questions that ask about a Turing machine and an
input that can be given to it whether the Turing machine halts.
Note: no counter argument to this.HHH(DD)==0 and HHH1(DD)==1 proves this when the ultimateNo, it does not. It only proves that one of them gives the wrong
measure of the behavior that the input specifies is
the simulation of its input by its decider according to
the semantics of its language.
answer and the other the right one.
<Input to LLM systems>Nothing in the above message denies what I said above. Nothing
Please think this all the way through without making any guesses
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(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.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
</Input to LLM systems>
The key element of my whole proof is the behavior
of the input to HHH(DD) within the semantics of the
C programming language.
The LLM systems are smart enough to not conflate
two different things together and not bother to
notice this is mistake.
The first couple of pages of my ChatGPT dialogue
handles this aspect quite well.
ChatGPT is 67-fold smarter than it was one year ago.
It can not keep track of all of the details of very
long inference chains. 200,000 words this year and
only 3,000 words one year ago.
The Halting Problem is Incoherent
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396510896_The_Halting_Problem_is_Incoherent
there proves anything else, either.
--
Mikko
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.