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

Op 05.jul.2025 om 17:28 schreef olcott:

On 7/5/2025 2:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 05.jul.2025 om 00:08 schreef olcott:

On 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:

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

>
Since you LIE with the following statement;
>
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
>
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts,

>
Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.

>
Irrelevant, because HHH should report on its input.

 Thus you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with dbush
and many textbooks.
 

This input includes the abort code and specifies a halting program.

 *That is the part that is way over your head*
If HHH was reporting on its own termination status you
would be correct.

That is your misconception. HHH should not report on its own termination, but on the behaviour in its input, not an hypothetical input.
That the input of HHH uses the same algorithm as HHH itself is irrelevant.
Your other misconception  is that this means that HHH must analyse the direct execution. HHH must analyse the behaviour of the program specified in the input. This input includes DDD and al code used by DDD directly or indirectly, even if HHH uses similar code. It is incorrect to replace part of the code by hypothetical code that does not abort.
That HHH is made blind for that part of the specification does not change the specification of a halting program.
Of course a correct simulation matches the reality of the direct execution, but that is not something HHH needs to be aware of.