Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method

On 6/30/25 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 22:39:10 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 6/29/25 3:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 15:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

Remember, the simulator must be simulating the INPUT, and thus to go
past the call HHH instruction, the code must be part of the input, and
the input needs to be a constant.

No. If HHH is simulating DDD then HHH can detect a call to itself being
passed DDD within DDD and can assert at that point that the input is
non-
halting.
>
/Flibble

>
And thus isn't simu;ating THE INPUT, and that the input isn't a PROGRAM.
>
Also, what if DDD is using a copy of HHH, as per the proof program,
which might have variations in the code.
>
Sorry, just shows you don't understand the problem.

>
No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to completion if it can
determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts.
>
/Flibble

>
Right, but the program of the input DOES halt.
>

 The directly executed DDD() *IS NOT AN INPUT*

Then you are lying about having followed the proof.

Directly executed Turing machines have always been
outside of the domain of any function computed by
a Turing machine therefore directly executed Turing
machines have never contradicted the decision of
any halt decider.

Nope, which shows your stupidity.
By that logic, Simple mathematics is outside the domain of any function computed by a Turing Machine, as numbers themselves are not finite strings, just representable by them.
Your failure to rebute this just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.
How do Turing Machines do math via representations, but can't handle programs via representations.
Your comments about the "vagueness" of representations just shows that the issue isn't actually in the representations, but your own understand of it, becuase you just don't understand the concepts.

 Halt deciders compute the mapping from the behavior
that their finite string inputs actually specifies.
 

Right, which specify a representation of a program, and thus the mapping needed is derived from the behavior of that program.