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

On 2025-07-05 15:18:46 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/5/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-04 20:16:34 +0000, olcott said:
 

https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e

 Perhaps an artificial idiot can think better than you but it does
not think better than most participants of these discussions.

 Yet you cannot point out any actual error.

There is no error in your above quoted words.

What is not provable is not analytic truth.

I totally agree. Not only must it be provable it must
be provable semantically not merely syntactically.

In order to prove anything a proof must be syntactically correct.
Then the conclusion is semantically true if the premises are.

Claude does provide the proof on the basis of understandings
that I provided to it. Here is the key new one:
 Since no Turing machine can take another directly executing
Turing machine as an input they are outside of the domain
of any Turing machine based decider.

By the same reasning there are no universal Turing machines. But the
reasoning is not correct. The halting problem requires that a halt
decider must predict what happens later ir the descirbed comutation
is performed.

The requirement that a partial halt decider to report on the
behavior of a directly executed machine has always been bogus.

The Wikipeda page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem confirms
what I said above. The magic word "bogus" has no effect, no matter how
may times you say it.

Opinions of artificial
idiots are not relevant. You have not proven any of your claims.

Your claims remain unproven as long as you don't prove them. You may
ask an AI to show a rigorous proof but ultimately its up to you to
prove or fail to prove your claims.
--
Mikko