XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/17/2025 9:57 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:   
   > Am 16.08.2025 um 16:20 schrieb olcott:   
   >> I am doing the same thing that ZFC did to the   
   >> Russell's Paradox problem. Since ZFC set theory   
   >> is now called naive set theory.   
   >>   
   >> After my correction the original halting problem   
   >> will be called *the naive halting problem*   
   >>   
   >> *Correcting the error of the halting problem spec*   
   >> Is it possible to create a halt decider H that consistently   
   >> reports the halt status of the behavior specified by its   
   >> input finite string Turing machine description P on the   
   >> basis of P correctly simulated by H?   
   >>   
   >>    
   >> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:   
   >> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and   
   >> return 0.   
   >> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.   
   >>   
   >> typedef int (*ptr)();   
   >> int HHH(ptr P);   
   >>   
   >> int DD()   
   >> {   
   >>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>    return Halt_Status;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> *The corrected halting problem spec says* HHH(DD)==0   
   >>   
   >> Three different LLM AI systems figured this out   
   >> on their own without prompting.   
   >>   
   >> https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c   
   >>   
   >> https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c   
   >>   
   >> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21-   
   >> eedd0f09e141   
   >>   
   >   
   > You're always wrong and ereryone knows it.   
   >   
      
   If that was true then they could point out the error   
   that five different LLM systems made when they figured   
   out my same reasoning on their own without being prompted.   
      
   All of the recent rebuttals of the essence of my work   
   are provable counter-factual.   
      
   It is a verified fact that DD correctly simulated by HHH   
   cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement   
   final halt state thus making HHH(DD)==0 necessarily correct.   
      
   *Here is a PhD computer science professor that agrees*   
   *with that essence of my work long before I ever said it*   
      
   *Professor Hehner recognized this repeating process before I did*   
      From a programmer's point of view, if we apply   
      an interpreter to a program text that includes   
      a call to that same interpreter with that same   
      text as argument, then we have an infinite loop.   
      
      A halting program has some of the same character   
      as an interpreter: it applies to texts through   
      abstract interpretation. Unsurprisingly, if we   
      apply a halting program to a program text that   
      includes a call to that same halting program   
      with that same text as argument, then we have an   
      infinite loop. (Hehner:2011:15)   
      
   [5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem,   
   COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine   
   and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited,   
   2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science   
   and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013   
   https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)