Re: Four Chatbots figure out on their own without prompting that HHH(DDD)==0

On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 16:36 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 4:26 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 16:05 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 3:57 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 15:41 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 3:14 PM, wij wrote:

 
HP is very simple: H(D)=1 if D halts, H(D)=0 if D does not halt.
 

 
The standard proof assumes a decider
H(M,x) that determines whether machine
M halts on input x.
 
But this formulation is flawed, because:

 
Whatever the 'formulation' is, the HP result is a fact that no H can decide
the halting status of any given D.
 

 
And that is wrong because H(⟨D⟩) is correctly determined.
It has always been a type mismatch error when H(D) was
assumed.

 
Yes, there is type mismatch problems in nearly all discussions.
But I don't think you will understand what it is.
 

 
I have proven that I do and you only deny this
because you are not interested in an honest
dialogue.

You like to ignore what people say, only insterested in one-sided talk,
showing you are not interested in honest discussion.

Turing machines can only process finite encodings
(e.g. ⟨M⟩), not executable entities like M.
 
So the valid formulation must be
H(⟨M⟩,x), where ⟨M⟩ is a string.

 
Halting Problem::= H(D)=1 if D halts, H(D)=0 if D does not halt.
The conclusion is, no such H exists.
 

 
And that is wrong because H(⟨D⟩) is correctly determined.
It has always been a type mismatch error when H(D) was
assumed.
 
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}
 

 
A type mismatch: HHH(DD) or HHH(<DDD>)?
 

 
DD points to the finite string machine
description of DD it does not point to
the executing process of DD.

That is what I predicted: You don't understand what you said.
(because it is a bit technical, I will skip this part)

DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot reach past
the "if" statement thus cannot reach the "return"
statement. T

 
That is roughly what HP proof says.
 

 
Not at all. The HP proof claims that DD
correctly simulated by HHH reaches the
self-contradictory part of DD and thus
forms a contradiction.

HP's conclusion is 'undecidable'.

his makes HHH(DD)==0 correct.

 
How is this statement from?

 
You chopped up my statement in the middle of a word.

You jumped to make an arbitrary and contradictory conclusion.
It seems you want to stick your one-sided outcome together with tautology (as
usual) hoping it will thus become true. Very ignorant and dishonest.

If I did not chopped up, your whole statement will be a false statement.

HHH(DD) above shows it cannot return to report 0.
(I guess you might say something and doing another, again)
 

 
Factually incorrect.

No words? If that 'verdict' is all what your 'proof' got? Why bother all the >20
years efforts of 'proof'.

'formulation' does not really matter.
If 'formulation' matters, it is another problem.