Re: ChatGPT agrees that I have refuted the conventional Halting Problem proof technique --- Full 38 page analysis

On 6/22/25 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2025 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:

Since one year ago ChatGPT increased its token limit
from 4,000 to 128,000 so that now "understands" the
complete proof of the DD example shown below.
>
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}
>
*This seems to be the complete HHH(DD) that includes HHH(DDD)*
https://chatgpt.com/share/6857286e-6b48-8011-91a9-9f6e8152809f
>
ChatGPT agrees that I have correctly refuted every halting
problem proof technique that relies on the above pattern.
>
>

>
Which begins with the LIE:
>
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern.
>
>

 ChatGPT does not know anything about my work besides
what I told it on those 38 pages.
 Since I am stipulating the definition of a simulating
termination analyzer and this definition is coherent
this definition cannot possibly be incorrect.
 

Right, so since you began with a LIE, its results are not based on FACTS.
By "Stipulating" your definition, you are just declairing that you work has nothing to do with the actual Halting Problem, because your "definition" is inconsistant and based on LIE.
Of course it ia inconherent and incorrect, as it is based on the inproper presumption that there DOES exist a set of patterns that can correctly determine if a program will never halt.
In particular, the pattern you are trying to claim to use, is part of the Halting Program D, DD, and DDD, so it is BY DEFINITION incorrect.
Sorry, your problem is you are so stupid and brain damaged that you are believing your own lies.
It seems you don't even understand the ground rules for how logic works.