Re: Four Chatbots figure out on their own without prompting that HHH(DDD)==0

On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 16:36 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 4:26 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 16:05 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 3:57 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 15:41 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 3:14 PM, wij wrote:

>
HP is very simple: H(D)=1 if D halts, H(D)=0 if D does not halt.
>

>
The standard proof assumes a decider
H(M,x) that determines whether machine
M halts on input x.
>
But this formulation is flawed, because:

>
Whatever the 'formulation' is, the HP result is a fact that no H can decide
the halting status of any given D.
>

>
And that is wrong because H(⟨D⟩) is correctly determined.
It has always been a type mismatch error when H(D) was
assumed.

>
Yes, there is type mismatch problems in nearly all discussions.
But I don't think you will understand what it is.
>

>
I have proven that I do and you only deny this
because you are not interested in an honest
dialogue.

 You like to ignore what people say, only insterested in one-sided talk,
showing you are not interested in honest discussion.
 

Turing machines can only process finite encodings
(e.g. ⟨M⟩), not executable entities like M.
>
So the valid formulation must be
H(⟨M⟩,x), where ⟨M⟩ is a string.

>
Halting Problem::= H(D)=1 if D halts, H(D)=0 if D does not halt.
The conclusion is, no such H exists.
>

>
And that is wrong because H(⟨D⟩) is correctly determined.
It has always been a type mismatch error when H(D) was
assumed.
>
int DD()
{
     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
     if (Halt_Status)
       HERE: goto HERE;
     return Halt_Status;
}
>

>
A type mismatch: HHH(DD) or HHH(<DDD>)?
>

>
DD points to the finite string machine
description of DD it does not point to
the executing process of DD.

 That is what I predicted: You don't understand what you said.
(because it is a bit technical, I will skip this part)
 

DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot reach past
the "if" statement thus cannot reach the "return"
statement. T

>
That is roughly what HP proof says.
>

>
Not at all. The HP proof claims that DD
correctly simulated by HHH reaches the
self-contradictory part of DD and thus
forms a contradiction.

 HP's conclusion is 'undecidable'.
 

his makes HHH(DD)==0 correct.

>
How is this statement from?

>
You chopped up my statement in the middle of a word.

 You jumped to make an arbitrary and contradictory conclusion.
It seems you want to stick your one-sided outcome together with tautology (as
usual) hoping it will thus become true. Very ignorant and dishonest.
 If I did not chopped up, your whole statement will be a false statement.
 

HHH(DD) above shows it cannot return to report 0.
(I guess you might say something and doing another, again)
>

>
Factually incorrect.

 No words? If that 'verdict' is all what your 'proof' got? Why bother all the >20
years efforts of 'proof'.
 

'formulation' does not really matter.
If 'formulation' matters, it is another problem.
>

>
>

>

>