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

On 7/18/2025 4:42 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:53:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/18/2025 1:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

 

Well there you go - if you feed incorrect statements to a chatbot, it's
no surprise it is capable of echoing them back to you.  Even Eliza
could do as much...
>

The above definition of HHH is ALL that the bots ever see, and there is
no basis for anyone to determine that it is incorrect.

 HHH only detects that its self would get stuck in recursive simulation.
 

You can't expect people to "acknowledge" false claims - I told you
years ago that HHH does not detect any such non-halting pattern.  What
it detects is your (unsound) so-called "Infinite Recursive Emulation"
pattern.  I wonder what your chatbot would say if you told it:

 

---  So-called Termination Analyser HHH simulates its input for a few
steps then decides to return 0, incorrectly indicating that its input
never halts.  In a separate test, its input is demonstrated to halt in
nnnnn steps.   [Replace nnnnn with actual number of steps]
>

I have proven that DDD simulated by HHH and directly executed DDD() are
in Claude.ai's own words are
"computationally distinct objects that have demonstrably different
behaviors."

That's bad. Nobody is running all their programs through HHH, in which
case they wouldn't even need to test them with HHH, since they are
already running everything through it and it refuses to execute it.
We are interested in DDD only. Nobody cares what HHH does to any
program.
 

I tell you this:
   "Halting is ONLY reaching a final halt state"
hundreds of times and you pretend that I never said it.

Liar. Quote?
 

How will you ensure CACM gives your paper to peer reviewers who are
"not liars" [aka, reviewers who aren't concerned about correctness of
your argument, and instead just mirror back whatever claims the paper
makes] ?

No one even attempts yo point out any actual errors.
Joes just said that HHH cannot possibly emulate itself after I have
conclusively proved that it does.

I didn't. You forgot the qualification.
 

On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
 > That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious
 > that *HHH cannot simulate DDD past the call to HHH*
I rewrote the explanations to be more clear
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer