XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 23.jul.2025 om 05:50 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/22/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 7/22/25 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 7/22/2025 5:51 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-07-21 14:07:27 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 7/21/2025 4:38 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-07-20 15:04:34 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 7/20/2025 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2025-07-19 14:59:41 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On 7/19/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-18 22:11:50 +0000, Mr Flibble said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 13:01:31 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Claude.ai agrees that the halting problem as defined is a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> category   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> error.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> https://claude.ai/share/0b784d2a-447e-441f-b3f0-a204fa17135a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> This can only be directly seen within my notion of a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> decider. I used the Linz proof as my basis.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorrowfully Peter Linz passed away 2 days less than one year   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> ago on my   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Mom's birthday July 19, 2024.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I was the first to state that the halting problem as defined   
   >>>>>>>>>>> is a category   
   >>>>>>>>>>> error and I stated it in this forum.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Indeed you stated that but failed to identify the actual   
   >>>>>>>>>> error. You   
   >>>>>>>>>> did not say which word in the problem statement is wrong or   
   >>>>>>>>>> what is   
   >>>>>>>>>> the wrong category or what would be the right one.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I conclusively proved the actual category error yet   
   >>>>>>>>> people that are only interested in rebuttal want no   
   >>>>>>>>> part of any proof that I am correct.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Is it the same error as Flibble found?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Flibble's category error is stated abstractly.   
   >>>>>>> My version is stated concretely.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Could you post a pointer to your version?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The category error is a type mismatch error where   
   >>>>> a Turing Machine decider is required to report on   
   >>>>> the behavior of a directly executed machine yet   
   >>>>> cannot take a directly executed machine as an input.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That is not a category error. A category error is a word or phrase   
   >>>> of some category in a context that requires a word or phrase of a   
   >>>> different category.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> The category error is the mistake of assuming that   
   >>> a directly executing Turing machine is in the category   
   >>> of input to a Turing machine halt decider.   
   >>   
   >> How is that a category error, when it is EXACTLY the category of   
   >> things that are supposed to be give (via representation) to it.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> The category error is typically stated indirectly by   
   >>> requiring a Turing machine based halt decider to report   
   >>> on the behavior of a directly executed Turing machine.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> WHich is what it needs to do,   
   >>   
   >>> It can be easily corrected by changing the requirement   
   >>> to report on the behavior that its finite string input   
   >>> specifies.   
   >>   
   >> WHich *IS* the behavior of the directed executed machine.   
   >>   
   >> All you are doing is admitting to lying by putting forward a strawman.   
   >>   
   >> You seem to assume you are allowed to change the rules of the system   
   >> and still be in the system.   
   >>   
   >> Sorry, that just shows you utter ignorance of the rules of logic.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> *I have conclusively proven that these behaviors diverge*   
   >>> That people cannot understand this proof does not mean that   
   >>> it is not a proof.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Nope, all you have conclusively proven is that you don't understand   
   >> the meaning of the words you are using.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Both of the best two chatbots were also surprised that   
      
      
   Ha, ha. How did they express the surprise?   
      
   > I proved that a correct simulation does not match the   
   > direct execution when the input calls its own simulator.   
      
   You did not prove it, you assumed/guessed it and fed it into the input   
   of the chatbox.   
      
   >   
   > All four of them immediately understood that DDD correctly   
   > simulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"   
   > instruction final halt state.   
      
   Yes, when fed with invalid input, they will draw incorrect conclusions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)