Re: The halting problem as defined is a category error --- Flibble is correct

Op 18.jul.2025 om 14:48 schreef olcott:

On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:01:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/17/2025 7:52 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

>

LOL - that's a /chatbot/ telling you how great you are!!
I guess it's not surprising that you would lap up such "praise", since
it's the best you can get.
So... if you're really counting chatbots as understanding your
argument,

>
They have conclusively proven that they do understand.

Proven? There's no understanding happening, it's just statistics.
>

The above is all that I give them and they figure out on their own that
the non-halting behavior pattern is caused by recursive simulation.
Not a single person here acknowledged that in the last three years. This
seems to be prove that my reviewers are flat out dishonest.

 

That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
DDD past the call to HHH.

 Why do you persist in this damned lie after I
have conclusively proved that HHH does simulate
itself simulating DDD?
 

Probably because half the truth is a lie.
You showed an incomplete simulation of HHH by itself. It aborts before it reaches the final halt state, even when we know that the simulated HHH has a final halt state when it aborts and returns to DDD.