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

On 7/20/25 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2025 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/25 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2025 6:11 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 19 Jul 2025 16:36:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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

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

>

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

>
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.

>
No. It proves that the direct execution reaches the part that contra-
dicts HHH's return value.
>

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

>
In other words, your explaination to Chat GPR was just in error, as the decider *IS* given the representation of the program M.
>

 H(M,x) is wrong and H(⟨M⟩,x) is correct.
You must actually pay attention or you miss
important details.
 

But YOU are the one that said that DDD needs to call HHH(DDD) to meet the specificaitons.
Thus it is YOUR error,
Of course, the problem is try to be talking about Turing Machines, and the call you wrote wasn't intended to be in a discusison of Turing Machines, so it is YOU that made the category error,
Sorry, you are just AGAIN showing you don't understand what you are talking about but just quoting stuff by rote that you never learned, causing you to just lie.