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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 02. Jul 2025, 09:37:38
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1042r4j$a69o$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 01.jul.2025 om 13:52 schreef olcott:
On 7/1/2025 3:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jul.2025 om 03:34 schreef olcott:
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*
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.
>
Halt deciders compute the mapping from the behavior
that their finite string inputs actually specifies.
>
>
>
The input is a pointer to a 'finite string' that includes the code of DDD and all functions called by it, in particular including the code to abort and halt.
 *I keep correcting you on this and you keep ignoring my correction*
Trying to correct a correct statement is not very professional.

The measure is DDD simulated by HHH reaching its simulated "return"
statement final halt state. HHH continues to simulated DDD as a
pure simulator (that also simulates itself simulating DDD) until
HHH sees the non-terminating pattern.
As usual claims without evidence.
No, the measure for halting behaviour is reaching the end when executed without disturbance. Any disturbance, such as switching off the computer, or aborting the simulation (, or changing the initialisation such as when cheating with the Root variable) does not count.
Exactly the same input has been proven to specify a halting program by world-class simulators and direct execution.
Therefore, HHH is wrong when it thinks there is a non-terminating pattern.
There is no such pattern, there is only a finite recursion.
The reason for this failure of HHH is that it does not count its own conditional branch instructions.
You keep ignoring these corrections to your statements.

 
Therefore, even a beginner can see that this input specifies a halting program. That your HHH cannot see that, does not change the specification.
 Five chatbots all agree that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
non-terminating recursive emulation even though DDD() halts.
Even more professional experts agree that halting behaviour is specified by the input and that HHH is wrong.
We know how easy it is to cheat with chatbots, so what counts more?

Date Sujet#  Auteur
26 Jun 25 * Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method131Alan Mackenzie
26 Jun 25 `* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method130olcott
27 Jun 25  +* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method109olcott
29 Jun 25  i`* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method108Mikko
29 Jun 25  i +* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method106olcott
29 Jun 25  i i+* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method13olcott
30 Jun 25  i ii+* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method11Richard Damon
30 Jun 25  i iii`* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method10olcott
30 Jun 25  i iii `* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method9Richard Damon
30 Jun 25  i iii  `* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method8olcott
1 Jul 25  i iii   `* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method7Richard Damon
1 Jul 25  i iii    +* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method5olcott
1 Jul 25  i iii    i`* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method4Richard Damon
1 Jul 25  i iii    i `* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method3olcott
2 Jul 25  i iii    i  +- Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method1Richard Damon
2 Jul 25  i iii    i  `- Logic proves that Peter Olcott is just a liar.1Richard Damon
2 Jul 25  i iii    `- Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method1Richard Heathfield
30 Jun 25  i ii`- Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method1Mikko
30 Jun 25  i i+* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method91Richard Damon
1 Jul 25  i ii`* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method90Richard Damon
1 Jul 25  i ii +* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method8olcott
1 Jul 25  i ii i+* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method4Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 25  i ii ii`* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method3olcott
2 Jul 25  i ii ii +- Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method1Richard Damon
2 Jul 25  i ii ii `- Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 25  i ii i`* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method3Richard Damon
1 Jul 25  i ii i `* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method2olcott
2 Jul 25  i ii i  `- Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method1Richard Damon
3 Jul 25  i ii `* HHH(DDD)==0 is correct81olcott
3 Jul 25  i ii  +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct36Mikko
3 Jul 25  i ii  i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct35olcott
3 Jul 25  i ii  i +- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii  i `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct33Mikko
4 Jul 25  i ii  i  `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct32olcott
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct11joes
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct10olcott
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct9Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i  `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct8olcott
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i   `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct7Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i    `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct6olcott
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   i     +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct2Fred. Zwarts
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   i     i`- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1olcott
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   i     `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct3Richard Damon
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   i      `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct2olcott
6 Jul01:25  i ii  i   i       `- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct19Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct18olcott
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct17Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i  `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct16olcott
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i   `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct15Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii  i   i    `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct14olcott
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   i     +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct3Fred. Zwarts
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   i     i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct2olcott
6 Jul10:45  i ii  i   i     i `- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Fred. Zwarts
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   i     `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct10Richard Damon
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   i      `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct9olcott
6 Jul01:36  i ii  i   i       `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct8Richard Damon
6 Jul03:23  i ii  i   i        `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct7olcott
6 Jul03:59  i ii  i   i         `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct6Richard Damon
6 Jul05:06  i ii  i   i          `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct5olcott
6 Jul10:40  i ii  i   i           +- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Fred. Zwarts
6 Jul12:48  i ii  i   i           `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct3Richard Damon
6 Jul16:08  i ii  i   i            `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct2olcott
6 Jul17:50  i ii  i   i             `- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
5 Jul 25  i ii  i   `- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Mikko
3 Jul 25  i ii  `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct44Richard Damon
3 Jul 25  i ii   `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct43olcott
3 Jul 25  i ii    `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct42Richard Damon
3 Jul 25  i ii     `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct41olcott
3 Jul 25  i ii      +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct5Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii      i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct4olcott
4 Jul 25  i ii      i `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct3Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii      i  `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct2olcott
4 Jul 25  i ii      i   `- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
4 Jul 25  i ii      `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct35Mikko
4 Jul 25  i ii       `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct34olcott
5 Jul 25  i ii        +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct30Fred. Zwarts
5 Jul 25  i ii        i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct29olcott
6 Jul10:19  i ii        i `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct28Mikko
6 Jul16:00  i ii        i  `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct27olcott
6 Jul17:53  i ii        i   +- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
7 Jul09:25  i ii        i   `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct25Mikko
7 Jul15:02  i ii        i    `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct24olcott
7 Jul23:32  i ii        i     +- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
8 Jul08:35  i ii        i     `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct22Mikko
8 Jul15:16  i ii        i      `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct21olcott
9 Jul09:32  i ii        i       +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct19Mikko
9 Jul13:45  i ii        i       i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct18olcott
10 Jul02:35  i ii        i       i +- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
10 Jul10:09  i ii        i       i `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct16Mikko
10 Jul15:15  i ii        i       i  `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct15olcott
11 Jul09:15  i ii        i       i   `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct14Mikko
11 Jul16:01  i ii        i       i    `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct13olcott
11 Jul16:54  i ii        i       i     +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct3joes
11 Jul21:53  i ii        i       i     i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct2olcott
12 Jul00:21  i ii        i       i     i `- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
11 Jul17:07  i ii        i       i     +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct7dbush
11 Jul18:32  i ii        i       i     i`* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct6olcott
11 Jul18:35  i ii        i       i     i +* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct2dbush
11 Jul18:45  i ii        i       i     i i`- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1olcott
12 Jul09:18  i ii        i       i     i `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct3Mikko
12 Jul00:13  i ii        i       i     +- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
12 Jul09:14  i ii        i       i     `- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Mikko
9 Jul12:18  i ii        i       `- Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct1Richard Damon
5 Jul 25  i ii        `* Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct3Mikko
30 Jun 25  i i`- Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method1Mikko
30 Jun 25  i `- Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method1Mikko
27 Jun 25  `* Re: ChatGPT agrees that HHH refutes the standard halting problem proof method20Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal