XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/15/2025 4:21 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as described   
   > in the sig.   
   >   
   > On 26/09/2025 21:00, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >> On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> *The conventional halting problem question is this*   
   > [snipped]>> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*   
   >>> What correct halt status value can be returned   
   >>> when the input to a halt decider actually does   
   >>> the opposite of whatever value is returned?   
   >>>   
   >>> These above conventional views are proven.   
   >>   
   >> Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements.   
   >> And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own   
   >> formulations and then declare them to be conventional.   
   >   
   > I think by "proof question" (s)he means the one that's used within the   
   > proof which conventionally is "What correct halt status value can be   
   > returned ... ? If true then it's not correct, if false then it's not   
   > correct, if something else then it doesn't decide because a decision is   
   > true or false. There's no correct halt status value that can be returned   
   > therefore there's no single halt decider." You see there the proof has a   
   > question, the proof question is as olcott said.   
   >   
      
   Yes.   
      
   > I think the criticisms levied at olcott can be reflected at the group. I   
   > think olcott constructs his/her messages carefully but opaquely through   
   > choosing unexpected aspects to mention. It's a raw assertive style   
   > perhaps following the advice of many a bad adviser who tells people to   
   > be assertive. It doesn't include adjustment of context to place   
   > assertions in the A-language or out of it.   
   >   
   > For example "These above conventional views are proven." People assert   
   > very strongly and uniformly that the proof question (the question used   
   > in the proof) is as he says it is. It is thus proven (in the traditional   
   > sense of proving a real thing by testing it in the real world) to be the   
   > "proof question".   
   >   
   > Each thing he says looks like it has _an_ interpretation in a normal   
   > U-language for the group that is true. I'm not sure if the only   
   > alternative interpretations are invalid and thus trigger negative   
   > emotions due to the reader not needing to backtrack a parse yet   
   > perceiving a meaning that could not have been expressed and should not   
   > have been expressed (the former not properly preventing judgement of the   
   > latter by a curious quirk of humanity).   
   >   
   > It is worthy of study for the nature of an U-language for logicians and   
   > the type of ambiguity resolution failure that it seems to be triggering.   
   > It might or might not be a good idea to try to receive such things well   
   > personally - perhaps one's humanity would be lost by venturing far from   
   > one's interpersonal experiences - it could cause marriage-breaking   
   > stuff, for example.   
   >   
      
      
   Please think this all the way through without making any guesses   
      
   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.   
   (c) If HHH must abort its simulation to prevent its own non-termination   
        then HHH is correct to abort this simulation and return 0.   
      
   typedef int (*ptr)();   
   int HHH(ptr P);   
      
   int DD()   
   {   
      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
      if (Halt_Status)   
        HERE: goto HERE;   
      return Halt_Status;   
   }   
      
   int main()   
   {   
      HHH(DD);   
   }   
      
   What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?   
      
      
   This is the key anchor of my proof and its question does   
   have an unequivocally correct answer that everyone here   
   flat out denies.   
      
   I changed it from the original to make it easier for   
   humans and LLM systems to understand. Each of the five   
   LLM systems that answered provided their reasoning on   
   why their answer was correct.   
      
   Claude AI, ChatGPT 4.0 and Grok all provided the same   
   answer on the first try without (c) or asking them not   
   to guess. Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 had to be told not to   
   guess. (c) Was added to make it clearer for humans   
   and both Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 still needs (c).   
      
   > --   
   > Tristan Wibberley   
   >   
   > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)