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

On 7/19/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:

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. 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".)
>

 For the purposes of this discussion this is the
100% complete definition of HHH. It is the exact
same one that I give to all the chat bots.
 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.

So, the only HHH that meets your definition is the HHH that never detects the pattern and aborts, and thus never returns.
The problem is that once you define the pattern of DDD calling HHH(DDD) and that HHH simulating the input to a second layer call of HHH(DDD) as non-halting, it no longer is, as then DDD() is a halting program.
Your problem is you refuse to actually understand what your words actualy mean, things like "Program", "Non-Halting", and "Correct" seem to be foreign to you.

 I have always proved that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

Right, but not that the pattern is non-halting, or that HHH CORRECTLY (which requires completely) its input.

 I have also always proved that DDD correctly simulated by
HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement final
halt state.

No, you have only proved that for the HHH the never aborts and thus never answers.
Since that is a different PROGRAM DDD then the program that the aborting HHH sees, it is irrelevent.

 *The following analysis cannot be correctly refuted*
https://chatgpt.com/share/687aa4c2-b814-8011-9e7d-b85c03b291eb
 

Sure it can, as you said:
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.
But the pattern it detects is NOT proof of "non-terminating behavior" as it also exists in the terminating behavior of the correctly simulated DDD as done by HHH1.
Since you start with a false premise, the argument is just unsound, as you have shown yourself to be.'
It also fails by the implied self-contradictory definition of "input" you use, as you first imply that "the input" doesn't include the code of HHH, so the "DDD" is a single constant input for the discussion, but you also imply that it is part of "the input" so that HHH can simulate it.
That by itself makes the arguement invalid.
That this has been pointed out to you many times and you still make the error means that you have shown that you either don't care about what is the truth or are unable to learn the meaning of these basics terms due to mental defect.