• Grok's opinion on the Halting Problem

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 23 21:14:32 2025
    Unlike ChatGPT, Grok cannot be persuaded that there is a category error in
    the extant Halting Problem proofs:

    https://x.com/i/grok/share/hohOAyMeLiZ0UXAwAdvmbeG44

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Jun 23 19:37:54 2025
    On 6/23/25 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/23/2025 4:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Unlike ChatGPT, Grok cannot be persuaded that there is a category
    error in
    the extant Halting Problem proofs:

    https://x.com/i/grok/share/hohOAyMeLiZ0UXAwAdvmbeG44

    /Flibble


    I took your link and explained HHH(DDD) and Grok agrees with me too. https://x.com/i/grok/share/tq0AhvRBnXngFf0cV01krj6zE


    But again, you LIE to it with the statment:

    If the decider is of the simulating kind the self referential
    construction leads to infinite regress which is a category error in the
    same way self reference is category error in Russell's Paradox.


    The problem is that the decide must be the decider, and what it does as
    the decide is what it does when called by the input, and thus, the
    "infinite regress" only happen if the decider just fails to be a decider.

    If the decider takes the steps to be a decider and returns an answer,
    then that "infinite regress" is broken (but only after the decider has
    stopped looking) and thus there is no "category error" present.

    Only your own stupidity, as you don't seem to understand the basic
    definiton of what is a program.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)