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

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. You just draw the wrong conclusion from it.
(Aside: what "seems" to you will convince no one. You can just call
everybody dishonest. Also, they are not "your reviewers".)

then that implies your conditions are now met for you to publish your
results in a peer-reviewed journal.

The next step is to get reviewers that are not liars.

Chatbots are liars?

(You said that for whatever reason you had to get one (or was it two?)
reviewers on board who understand your argument - well by your own
reckoning you've not only done that - you've done better, since chatbot
approval is (IYO) free of biases etc. so is presumably worth /more/.)
Have you chosen the journal yet?
 

Yes the same one that published:
Considered harmful was popularized among computer scientists by Edsger
Dijkstra's letter "Go To Statement Considered Harmful",[3][4] published
in the March 1968 Communications of the ACM (CACM)

Great, do keep us posted if they reply. Any relation to that paper?

Meanwhile in the real world... you realise that posters here consider
this particular (chatbot based) Appeal To Authority to be beyond a
joke?
 

Yet they are dishonest about this in the same way that they have been
dishonest about the dead obvious issue of recursive emulation for three
fucking years.
Truth has never ever been about credibility it has always been about
sound deductive inference. If they think that Claude.ai is wrong then
find its error.

If you were correct, you wouldn't need a chatbot as a yes-man.

Any fucking moron can keep repeating that they just don't believe it. If
you don't find any actual error then you must be a damned liar when you
say that I am wrong.

Word.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.