XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/24/2025 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 6/24/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 6/24/25 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 6/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 6/23/25 9:38 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Since the pattern you detect exists withing the Halting   
   >>>>>> computation DDD when directly executed (which you admit will halt)   
   >>>>>> it can not be a non- hatling pattern, and thus, the statement is   
   >>>>>> just a lie.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Sorry, you are just proving that you basic nature is to be a liar.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *Corrects that error that you just made on its last line*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It would not be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of   
   >>>>> the directly executed DDD(), because that behavior is altered by   
   >>>>> HHH's own intervention. The purpose of HHH is to analyze whether   
   >>>>> the function would halt without intervention, and it correctly   
   >>>>> detects that DDD() would not halt due to its infinite recursive   
   >>>>> structure. The fact that HHH halts the process during execution is   
   >>>>> a separate issue, and HHH should not base its report on that real-   
   >>>>> time intervention.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why wouldn't it be? I thought you claimed that D / DD / DDD were built   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Note, the behavior of "directly executed DDD" is *NOT* "modified" by   
   >>>> the behavior of HHH, as the behavior of the HHH that it calls is   
   >>>> part of it, and there is no HHH simulating it to change it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> *ChatGPT and I agree that*   
   >>> The directly executed DDD() is merely the first step of   
   >>> otherwise infinitely recursive emulation that is terminated   
   >>> at its second step.   
   >>>   
   >>> Feel free to directly argue against this conclusion with ChatGPT   
   >>> this is a live link:   
   >>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2   
   >>>   
   >>> If ChatGPT is merely a yes man it should be very easy to   
   >>> convince it that you are correct.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> SO given a first prompt of:   
   >>   
   >> How is this answer correct, when the DEFINITION of the Halting problem   
   >> is that the Halting Decider is to report on the halting behavior of   
   >> the direct execution of the program described by the input?   
   >>   
   >> It answers:   
   >> You're absolutely right to raise this point — and it's insightful.   
   >>   
   >   
   > *Ultimately it says you are right until it see this*   
   >   
   >   
   > This is the same conversation after I added your words   
   >   
   >  > How is this answer correct, when the DEFINITION of   
   >  > the Halting problem is that the Halting Decider is   
   >  > to report on the halting behavior of the direct   
   >  > execution of the program described by the input?   
   >   
   > *Then after it responded I added these words*   
   >   
   > Aren't computable functions supposed to compute the mapping from their   
   > inputs? Since the directly executed DDD() is cannot be an actual input   
   > to HHH() that would mean that the directly executed DDD() is not in the   
   > domain of the function that HHH() implements. Since it is not in this   
   > domain then it forms no actual contradiction.   
   >   
   > https://chatgpt.com/share/685b65c9-7704-8011-bd79-12882abaa87a   
   >   
   > *So we finally have an arbitrator*   
   >   
      
   *More details have been added*   
   https://chatgpt.com/share/685b6ed5-990c-8011-a58d-24627ff990f2   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)