• Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed --- Updating my

    From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 25 15:39:22 2025
    On 25/08/2025 15:37, olcott wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 5:55 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 25/08/2025 11:30, Richard Harnden wrote:

    <snip>

    Which is more likely?
    (A) you're a genius and nobody can see it?
    or (B) you're wrong?

    He's convinced that the correct answer is (A).


    The fact that no one has been able to correctly
    point to a single material error in my work in
    three years seems to prove this.

    DD halts. HHH claims otherwise.

    Error pointed.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kaz Kylheku@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 25 23:10:45 2025
    On 2025-08-25, olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 5:55 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 25/08/2025 11:30, Richard Harnden wrote:
    On 24/08/2025 23:19, olcott wrote:

    <snip>

    https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?
    id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B


    You link to a thread on sci.logic in which everybody disagrees with you. >>>
    Which is more likely?
    (A) you're a genius and nobody can see it?
    or (B) you're wrong?

    He's convinced that the correct answer is (A).


    The fact that no one has been able to correctly
    point to a single material error in my work in
    three years seems to prove this.

    I would say, the static data thing in the Halt7 test case and others is
    the material error, as far as the code goes surrounding the x86utm
    system.

    More specifically, not starting a fresh instance of the x86utm,
    in the face of static, mutating data.

    We have to insist that the source of truth for the behavior of DD (halts
    or not) is a single top-level call to DD() in a fresh x86utm.

    And that the source of truth for the decision made by HHH is
    a single top-level call to HHH in a fresh x86utm.

    --
    TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
    Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
    Mastodon: @[email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 25 19:02:01 2025
    On 8/25/25 10:37 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 5:55 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 25/08/2025 11:30, Richard Harnden wrote:
    On 24/08/2025 23:19, olcott wrote:

    <snip>

    https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?
    id=sci.logic&mid=PGJDRndjLjEzOTgwJEd4NC4yNTM3QGJndG5zYzA0LW5ld3Mub3BzLndvcmxkbmV0LmF0dC5uZXQ%2B


    You link to a thread on sci.logic in which everybody disagrees with you. >>>
    Which is more likely?
    (A) you're a genius and nobody can see it?
    or (B) you're wrong?

    He's convinced that the correct answer is (A).


    The fact that no one has been able to correctly
    point to a single material error in my work in
    three years seems to prove this.


    Which is just a LIE, showing that you are just stupid.

    <Input to LLM systems>
    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.

    missing the actual result if you hold to (a) and (b) that
    (c) or loops forever waiting to find a finite pattern that actually
    shows that the input program will never halt or reaches a final state.


    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?

    Which incorrectly presumes that such an answer exists.

    It should be What value can HHH(DD) correctly return

    <Input to LLM systems>

    Five different LLM systems formed a consensus on
    the basis of the verified fact that DD correctly
    simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
    "return" statement final halt state in any finite
    number of steps.

    And Garbage in leads to Garbage out.


    Claude AI proved why HHH(DD)==0 is correct in terms
    that any expert C programmer can understand. 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

    Gemini had to be forced into do not guess mode https://g.co/gemini/share/4f44c883b348

    And what was wrong with its final answer:

    Actual C Runtime Behavior

    In a standard C environment, the behavior of this program depends
    entirely on the implementation of the HHH function. Given the code, if
    HHH were to simulate DD as per the rules and return 0, the Halt_Status
    variable would be 0. The if (Halt_Status) condition would be false, and
    the program would execute the final line, returning 0. If HHH returned
    any non-zero value, the program would enter an infinite goto loop at
    HERE: goto HERE;, causing it to hang indefinitely.


    ChatGPT 5.0 had to be forced into do not guess mode https://chatgpt.com/share/68abcbd5-cee4-8011-80d7-93e8385d90d8



    Or this:

    Would you like me to also simulate the counterfactual path where HHH is magically defined and returns 0 or 1, so you can see both possible
    execution branches of DD()?

    Where it points out that neither answer will be correct.


    It seems you just reject as incorrect any answer that doesn't agree with
    you.

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