Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 28. Jun 2025, 13:56:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <103oop5$rq7e$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/28/2025 6:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-27 15:22:50 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 6/26/2025 5:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-25 15:26:28 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/25/2025 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-24 21:41:37 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/24/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:06:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/24/2025 12:57 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:46:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
It is an easily verified fact that no *input* to any partial halt
decider (PHD) can possibly do the opposite of what its corresponding
PHD decides. In all of the years of all of these proofs no such
*input* was ever presented.
>
You should clarify that you don't even think programs can be passed as
input.
>
It is common knowledge the no Turing Machine can take another directly
executed Turing Machine as an input.
So common that nobody would suggest such. You are the king of strawmen.
>
*From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
   if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
   if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not have embedded_H reporting on
the behavior specified by its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ it has embedded_H
reporting on its own behavior.
>
As made clear in the source text, embedded_H does the same as
H when given the same input. The only difference is that if
that same behaviour reaches its qy state then H halts there
but Ĥ runs forever in a tight loop.
>
*You are not getting the main point*
The fact that Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ is
not contradicted by the fact that Ĥ.embedded_H itself halts.
>
That is not the main point.
>
It is the *only* reason why
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
is incorrectly construed as being incorrect.
 It is neither correct nor incorrect. There are no requirements about Ĥ.
 
The above shows that Ĥ.embedded_H decided not halting.
This is either correct or incorrect depending on the
criterion measure.
If Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is to report on the behavior
that its inputs specify then transitioning to Ĥ.qn
is correct.
When it is understood that the directly executing
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not in the domain of Ĥ.embedded_H
then the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not contradict
the reporting of non-halting.

The main point is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts if
iH ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn but not if H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to
Ĥ.qy. Anything said about embedded_H is merely an intermediate
step in the proof of the main point if not totally irrelevant.
>
Because Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly take any directly
executing TM as its input that makes the behavior of
Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ outside of the domain of Ĥ.embedded_H.
>
Irrelevant. It can and does take the same input as H and from that
computes the same as H. That is all that is needed for the proof.
>
Since Turing Machines cannot take directly executing
Turing Machines as inputs this means that the directly
executed Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not in the domain of
Ĥ.embedded_H, *thus no contradiction is ever formed*
>
False. That Turing Machines cannot take directly executing
Turing Machnes as inputs is irrelevant.
>
Directly executing TM's are not in the domain of any
halt decider.
>
The definition of a halt decider requires that a halt decider
correctly predicts whether a direct execution halts
>
That has always been incorrect because no Turing machine
can ever take any directly executing Turing machine as
its input all of these directly executed Turing machines
are outside of the domain of any partial halt decider.
 No, it is not incorrect. It is what the words mean.
 
Likewise with the definition of a circle as having four
equal length sides. The requirement that a halt decider
report on the behavior of the direct execution of a machine
is contradicted by the fact that no Turing Machine can take
a directly executing machine as its input.
Just because no one has ever noticed this before does not
mean that I am wrong. Partial halt deciders are only held
accountable for *inputs* in their domain. Their own directly
executed selves are not *inputs* in their domain.

Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
is correct because ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by
Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly reach its own simulated
final halt state ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
 Correct or incorrect does not apply to Ĥ as there are no requirements.
 
The requirement is that Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
determine the halt status that its input specifies.
*Here is the whole Linz proof*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
--
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
21 Jun 25 * ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique58olcott
22 Jun 25 +* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique3Keith Thompson
22 Jun 25 i`* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique2olcott
22 Jun 25 i `- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1Richard Damon
22 Jun 25 +* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique2Mike Terry
22 Jun 25 i`- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1olcott
22 Jun 25 +* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique10Alan Mackenzie
22 Jun 25 i`* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique9olcott
22 Jun 25 i +- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1Richard Damon
23 Jun 25 i `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique7Mikko
23 Jun 25 i  `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique6olcott
24 Jun 25 i   `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique5Mikko
24 Jun 25 i    `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique4olcott
25 Jun 25 i     `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique3Mikko
25 Jun 25 i      `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique2olcott
26 Jun 25 i       `- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1Mikko
22 Jun 25 +* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique37Mikko
22 Jun 25 i`* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique36olcott
22 Jun 25 i +- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1Richard Damon
23 Jun 25 i `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique34Mikko
23 Jun 25 i  `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique33olcott
23 Jun 25 i   `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique32Mike Terry
23 Jun 25 i    `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique31olcott
24 Jun 25 i     `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique30Mikko
24 Jun 25 i      `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique29olcott
24 Jun 25 i       +* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique2wij
24 Jun 25 i       i`- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1olcott
24 Jun 25 i       +* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique25Alan Mackenzie
24 Jun 25 i       i`* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique24olcott
24 Jun 25 i       i `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique23Alan Mackenzie
24 Jun 25 i       i  `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique22olcott
24 Jun 25 i       i   +* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique16joes
24 Jun 25 i       i   i`* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique15olcott
24 Jun 25 i       i   i `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique14joes
24 Jun 25 i       i   i  `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique13olcott
25 Jun 25 i       i   i   `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique12Mikko
25 Jun 25 i       i   i    `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique11olcott
26 Jun 25 i       i   i     `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique10Mikko
27 Jun 25 i       i   i      `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique9olcott
28 Jun 25 i       i   i       `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique8Mikko
28 Jun 25 i       i   i        `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique7olcott
29 Jun 25 i       i   i         `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique6Mikko
29 Jun 25 i       i   i          `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique5olcott
30 Jun 25 i       i   i           `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique4Mikko
30 Jun 25 i       i   i            `* Turing machine HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of the directly executed DDD()3olcott
1 Jul 25 i       i   i             `* Re: Turing machine HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of the directly executed DDD()2Mikko
1 Jul 25 i       i   i              `- Re: Turing machine HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of the directly executed DDD()1olcott
24 Jun 25 i       i   `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique5Alan Mackenzie
24 Jun 25 i       i    `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique4olcott
24 Jun 25 i       i     `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique3Alan Mackenzie
24 Jun 25 i       i      `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique2olcott
24 Jun 25 i       i       `- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1Chris M. Thomasson
25 Jun 25 i       `- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1Mikko
22 Jun 25 `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique5Richard Damon
22 Jun 25  `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique4olcott
22 Jun 25   `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique3Richard Damon
22 Jun 25    `* Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique2olcott
23 Jun 25     `- Re: ChatGPT totally understands exactly how I refuted the conventional halting problem proof technique1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal