XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 21.jul.2025 om 16:19 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/21/2025 3:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:13 schreef olcott:   
   >>> On 7/20/2025 2:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>> Op 19.jul.2025 om 17:50 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>> On 7/19/2025 2:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No, the error in your definition has been pointed out to you many   
   >>>>>> times.   
   >>>>>> When the aborting HHH is simulated correctly, without disturbance,   
   >>>>>> it reaches the final halt state.   
   >>>   
   >>> I could equally "point out" that all cats are dogs.   
   >>> Counter-factual statements carry no weight.   
   >>   
   >> Irrelevant.   
   >> You cannot prove that cats are dogs, but the simulation by world class   
   >> simulators prove that exactly the same input specifies a halting program.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This trivial C function is the essence of my proof   
   >>>>> (Entire input to the four chat bots)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();   
   >>>>> int HHH(ptr P);   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> void DDD()   
   >>>>> {   
   >>>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>>    return;   
   >>>>> }   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> int main()   
   >>>>> {   
   >>>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>> }   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>> No rebuttal, but repeated counter-factual claims.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All of the chat bots figure out on their own that the input   
   >>>>> to HHH(DDD) is correctly rejected as non-halting.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, we see that the detection of non-termination is the input for   
   >>>> the chat-box, not its conclusion.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://chatgpt.com/c/687aa48e-6144-8011-a2be-c2840f15f285   
   >>>>> *Below is quoted from the above link*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This creates a recursive simulation chain:   
   >>>>> HHH(DDD)   
   >>>>>    -> simulates DDD()   
   >>>>>         -> calls HHH(DDD)   
   >>>>>              -> simulates DDD()   
   >>>>>                   -> calls HHH(DDD)   
   >>>>>                        -> ...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Wich is counter-factual, because we know that HHH aborts before this   
   >>>> happens.   
   >>> *Best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*   
   >>>    
   >>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its   
   >>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D   
   >>>      would never stop running unless aborted then   
   >>>   
   >>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
   >>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Irrelevant empty claim. No H can correctly simulate itself up to the   
   >> end. Since D calls H and we know that H halts, we know that a correct   
   >> simulation would show that H returns to D, after which D halts.   
   >> So, D halts.   
   >> The prerequisites 'correctly simulates' and 'correctly determines'   
   >> cannot be true, therefore the conclusion is irrelevant. It makes that   
   >> Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement.   
      
   As usual repeated claims without any new evidence, even though many   
   errors in them have been pointed out earlier.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > The correct measure of the behavior of the input to HHH(DDD)   
   > is DDD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of the C   
   > programming language.   
   >   
   > The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is not a correct   
   > measure of the behavior of the input to HHH(DDD) because the   
   > directly executed DDD() is not in the domain of HHH.   
      
   The HHH with bugs is not a correct measure for the behaviour specified   
   in its input.   
      
   HHH needs to report on the behaviour specified in its input. In this   
   case the input specifies a DDD that calls a HHH, which aborts and   
   returns, so the input specifies a halting program.   
   The semantics of the C programming language allows only one behaviour,   
   which is indeed seen in direct execution.   
   If HHH cannot reproduce the behaviour specified in the input, it just fails.   
      
   >   
   > Both ChatGPT and Claude.ai demonstrate the equivalent of   
   > complete understanding of this on the basis of their correct   
   > paraphrase of my reasoning.   
   >   
   > Although LLM systems are famous for hallucinations we   
   > can see that this is not the case with their evaluation   
   > of my work because their reasoning is sound.   
   >   
   > It is a fact that Turing machine deciders cannot take   
   > directly executed Turing machines as inputs.   
   >   
   > It is a fact that the Halting Problem proofs require   
   > a Turing machine decider to report on the behavior   
   > of the direct execution of another Turing machine.   
   >   
   > *That right there proves an error in the proof*   
   >   
      
   It only proves that chat-boxes generate nonsense when fed with nonsense.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)