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

On 2025-06-24 14:55:11 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/24/2025 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-23 15:16:14 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/23/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-22 14:38:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/21/2025 11:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

>

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6857335b37a08191a077d57039fa4a76
ChatGPT agrees that I have correctly refuted every
halting problem proof technique that relies on the above
pattern.

>
That's neither here nor there.  The plain fact is you have NOT refuted
any proof technique.  How could you, you don't even understand what is
meant by proof?

>
A proof is any sequence of steps such that its conclusion
can be correctly determined to be necessarily true.

>
False. There are other requirements. Every sentence of the sequence,
not just the last one, must either be a premise or follow from
earlier ones with an acceptable inference rule.

>
There is a subset of proofs that have this requirement.
They typically are of the form that a conclusion is
proved definitely true within a set of assumptions.
>
Another form of this same proof only has expressions
of language known to be true as its premises.

>
If the set of the premises is not the same it is not the same proof.

>
When a proof has known facts all of its premises thenn
its conclusion is proven definitely true when it is proven.

 Nevertheless, the proofa are not the same if their sets of premises
are not the same.