XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, alt.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/25/2025 1:50 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-06-24 15:00:30 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >> On 6/24/2025 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-06-23 16:51:23 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 6/23/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-06-22 19:16:24 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 6/22/2025 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-06-21 17:34:55 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 6/21/2025 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-20 13:59:02 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 4:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:17 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 15:46 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 5:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 03:54 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating DDD then any first year CS student knows   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when each of the above are correctly simulated   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH that none of them ever stop running unless   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich means that the code for HHH is part of the input,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus there is just ONE HHH in existance at this time.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since that code aborts its simulation to return the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer that you claim, you are just lying that it did a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation (which in this context means complete)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *none of them ever stop running unless aborted*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of them do abort and their simulation does not need   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an abort.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is not given that any of them abort*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> At least it is true for all aborting ones, such as the one   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> you presented in Halt7.c.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> My claim is that each of the above functions correctly   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by any termination analyzer HHH that can possibly   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> exist will never stop running unless aborted by HHH.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you affirm or correctly refute this?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I confirmed many times that we can confirm this vacuous   
   >>>>>>>>>>> claim, because no such HHH exists. All of them fail to do a   
   >>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation up to the point where they can see whether   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the input specifies a halting program.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> if DDD correctly simulated by any simulating termination   
   >>>>>>>>>> analyzer HHH never aborts its simulation of DDD then   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> that HHH is not interesting.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> *then the HP proofs are proved to be wrong*   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No, they are not. You have not solved the halting problem and that   
   >>>>>>> (in addition to all proofs) supports the claim that halting problem   
   >>>>>>> is unsolvable.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ChatGPT corrected my words and agreed that I have   
   >>>>>> correctly refuted the generic HP proof technique   
   >>>>>> where an input has been defined to only do the   
   >>>>>> opposite of whatever value that its decider decides.   
   >>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6857335b37a08191a077d57039fa4a76   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Doesn't matter. Only proofs matter. So far you have not proven   
   >>>>> anything   
   >>>>> and it is unlikely you could prove anything even after asking ChatGPT   
   >>>>> for help.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> The ChatGPT that evaluated and affirmed my analysis   
   >>>>>> of HHH(DDD) one year ago could only handle 4000 tokens   
   >>>>>> thus could not understand HHH(DD).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ChatGPT with GPT-4-turbo — can handle up to 128,000 tokens   
   >>>>>> of context in a single conversation, immediately understood   
   >>>>>> HHH(DD) within the context of the conversation of HHH(DDD).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ChatGPT does not understand. Whether you do is still not determined.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Anyway,   
   >>>>>>> In order to show that a proof is wrong you need to show an error   
   >>>>>>> in the proof. Even then the conclusion is proven unless you can   
   >>>>>>> show an error in every proof of that conclusion.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That you do not understand that any set of expressions of   
   >>>> language that show another expression of language is   
   >>>> necessarily true is its proof is your ignorance not mine.   
   >>>   
   >>> Only a proof is a proof.   
   >>   
   >> There are things called proofs that have a certain   
   >> form and there is the broader concept of proof that   
   >> does not require this certain form.   
   >>   
   >> A proof is any set of expressions of language that   
   >> correctly concludes that another expression of   
   >> language is definitely true.   
   >   
   > A singlet set of expressions that just states a correct conclusion   
   > satisfy the above definition but does not prove anything. A proof   
   > is something that gives a sufficient reson to believe what otherwise   
   > might not be believed.   
   >   
      
   Correct proofs can also depend on the meaning of natural   
   language words. It is typical that formal proofs make sure   
   to totally ignore every aspect of this.   
      
   An expression of language is proven true when a set of   
   semantic meanings makes it true.   
      
   To really understand this requires deep understanding of   
   the philosophy of truth, rather than rote memorization   
   of some conventional steps.   
      
   Two elements that require very deep understanding are   
   (a) truth-makers and (b) truth-bearers.   
   Truthmaker Maximalism says that when there is nothing   
   that makes an expression of language true then this   
   expression is not true.   
      
   > A set of expressions is not sufficiently organized to count as a   
   > proof. The conclusion of the proor is its last sentence and in a   
   > set there is no last one.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)