Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulationeedd0f09e141
non-halting behavior pattern on their own without prompting.
They also correctly determined that the HP proof decider would be
correct to reject its input as non-halting.
<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.
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?
<Input to LLM systems>
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-
Gemini had to be forced into do not guess mode https://g.co/gemini/share/4f44c883b348
ChatGPT 5.0 had to be forced into do not guess mode https://chatgpt.com/share/68abcbd5-cee4-8011-80d7-93e8385d90d8
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
non-halting behavior pattern on their own without prompting.
They also correctly determined that the HP proof decider would
be correct to reject its input as non-halting.
<Input to LLM systems>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input
On 9/2/2025 1:52 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/09/2025 19:18, olcott wrote:That is exactly what a every decider does.
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
non-halting behavior pattern on their own without prompting.
... except for a little bit of prompting.
They also correctly determined that the HP proof decider would
be correct to reject its input as non-halting.
HP proof deciders do not have the option to reject their input.
Only two options accept or reject for every decider.
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
On 2025-09-02, olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
You've written a lot of incorrect texts and published them on
that network.
LLMs are trained on texts scraped from the Internet. They are trained
by repeatedly adjusting their parameters until they predict the next
word in a given piece of text, which could easily be a fragment of a
Peter Olcott posting from comp.theory.
When you prompt LLMs with your usual terminology, the token prediction
is going to go down a path that traverses the space of your own texts.
Can you /prove/ that Claude, Gemini and others are /not/ predicting
tokens based on your own internet texts?
On 9/2/2025 2:50 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-02, olcott <[email protected]> wrote:It is an objective matter of fact that I have shown that the HP proof
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
You've written a lot of incorrect texts and published them on that
network.
LLMs are trained on texts scraped from the Internet. They are trained
by repeatedly adjusting their parameters until they predict the next
word in a given piece of text, which could easily be a fragment of a
Peter Olcott posting from comp.theory.
When you prompt LLMs with your usual terminology, the token prediction
is going to go down a path that traverses the space of your own texts.
Can you /prove/ that Claude, Gemini and others are /not/ predicting
tokens based on your own internet texts?
decider H would be correct to reject the HP proof input D on the basis
of a D correctly simulated by H.
On 9/2/2025 3:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 15:18:06 -0500, olcott wrote:My H says that its input D specifies a sequence of moves that cannot
On 9/2/2025 2:50 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-02, olcott <[email protected]> wrote:It is an objective matter of fact that I have shown that the HP proof
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
You've written a lot of incorrect texts and published them on that
network.
LLMs are trained on texts scraped from the Internet. They are trained
by repeatedly adjusting their parameters until they predict the next
word in a given piece of text, which could easily be a fragment of a
Peter Olcott posting from comp.theory.
When you prompt LLMs with your usual terminology, the token
prediction is going to go down a path that traverses the space of
your own texts.
Can you /prove/ that Claude, Gemini and others are /not/ predicting
tokens based on your own internet texts?
decider H would be correct to reject the HP proof input D on the basis
of a D correctly simulated by H.
Your H says D doesn't halt, D halts.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
possibly reach their own final halt state as proven by D correctly
simulated by H.
On 9/2/2025 2:50 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-02, olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
You've written a lot of incorrect texts and published them on
that network.
LLMs are trained on texts scraped from the Internet. They are trained
by repeatedly adjusting their parameters until they predict the next
word in a given piece of text, which could easily be a fragment of a
Peter Olcott posting from comp.theory.
When you prompt LLMs with your usual terminology, the token prediction
is going to go down a path that traverses the space of your own texts.
Can you /prove/ that Claude, Gemini and others are /not/ predicting
tokens based on your own internet texts?
It is an objective matter of fact that I have
shown that the HP proof decider H would be correct
to reject the HP proof input D on the basis of a
D correctly simulated by H.
My H says that its input D specifies a sequence of
moves that cannot possibly reach their own final
halt state as proven by D correctly simulated by H.
On 9/2/2025 3:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Your H says D doesn't halt, D halts.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
My H says that its input D specifies a sequence of
moves that cannot possibly reach their own final
halt state as proven by D correctly simulated by H.
On 9/2/2025 4:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/09/2025 21:23, olcott wrote:As I have repeated many times no Turing machine based halt decider can possibly see its actual caller thus cannot possibly report on the
<snip>
My H says that its input D specifies a sequence of moves that cannot
possibly reach their own final halt state as proven by D correctly
simulated by H.
DD halts.
If HHH (as written) doesn't claim DD halts, HHH is mistaken.
If HHH is modified to claim that DD halts, DD will no longer halt, so
HHH is mistaken.
behavior of its actual caller.
On 9/2/2025 4:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/09/2025 21:23, olcott wrote:
<snip>
My H says that its input D specifies a sequence of
moves that cannot possibly reach their own final
halt state as proven by D correctly simulated by H.
DD halts.
If HHH (as written) doesn't claim DD halts, HHH is mistaken.
If HHH is modified to claim that DD halts, DD will no longer
halt, so HHH is mistaken.
As I have repeated many times no Turing machine
based halt decider can possibly see its actual
caller thus cannot possibly report on the behavior
of its actual caller.
HHH(DD) can't tell if its called from main() or
called from DD().
On 9/2/2025 4:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 16:34:14 -0500, olcott wrote:Yet none of these proofs ever considered a simulating halt decider. Thus
On 9/2/2025 4:19 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/09/2025 21:23, olcott wrote:As I have repeated many times no Turing machine based halt decider can
<snip>
My H says that its input D specifies a sequence of moves that cannot >>>>> possibly reach their own final halt state as proven by D correctly
simulated by H.
DD halts.
If HHH (as written) doesn't claim DD halts, HHH is mistaken.
If HHH is modified to claim that DD halts, DD will no longer halt, so
HHH is mistaken.
possibly see its actual caller thus cannot possibly report on the
behavior of its actual caller.
A halt decider doesn't have to see its actual caller to be able to
report on its actual caller if a description of its actual caller is
passed to it as an input -- which is what the Halting Problem proofs
do.
they never noticed the recursive simulation non-halting behavior
pattern.
Yet none of these proofs ever considered a simulating
halt decider.
Thus they never noticed the recursive
simulation non-halting behavior pattern.
As I have repeated many times no Turing machine
based halt decider can possibly see its actual
caller thus cannot possibly report on the behavior
of its actual caller.
HHH(DD) can't tell if its called from main() or
called from DD().
On 9/2/2025 4:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 16:34:14 -0500, olcott wrote:
As I have repeated many times no Turing machine based halt decider can
possibly see its actual caller thus cannot possibly report on the
behavior of its actual caller.
A halt decider doesn't have to see its actual caller to be able to report
on its actual caller if a description of its actual caller is passed to it >> as an input -- which is what the Halting Problem proofs do.
Yet none of these proofs ever considered a simulating
halt decider.
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
non-halting behavior pattern on their own without prompting.
They also correctly determined that the HP proof decider would
be correct to reject its input as non-halting.
<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.
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?
<Input to LLM systems>
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
ChatGPT 5.0 had to be forced into do not guess mode https://chatgpt.com/share/68abcbd5-cee4-8011-80d7-93e8385d90d8
Op 02.sep.2025 om 20:18 schreef olcott:
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
non-halting behavior pattern on their own without prompting.
Incorrect. You feed the AI with the incorrect information that
HHH is capable of detecting a non-termination pattern.
We know that cannot be true, it is exactly the claim that needs a
proof.
Proving something true with the assumption that it is true is an
invalid circular reasoning.
On 9/2/2025 4:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-02, olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/2/2025 2:50 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-02, olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
You've written a lot of incorrect texts and published them on
that network.
LLMs are trained on texts scraped from the Internet. They are trained
by repeatedly adjusting their parameters until they predict the next
word in a given piece of text, which could easily be a fragment of a
Peter Olcott posting from comp.theory.
When you prompt LLMs with your usual terminology, the token prediction >>>> is going to go down a path that traverses the space of your own texts. >>>>
Can you /prove/ that Claude, Gemini and others are /not/ predicting
tokens based on your own internet texts?
It is an objective matter of fact that I have
shown that the HP proof decider H would be correct
to reject the HP proof input D on the basis of a
D correctly simulated by H.
There is no "would be" operator in mathematics, only "is'.
Still this is much more advanced than both return
values are the wrong answer.
We now know the correct
answer and the architecture of the design to find it.
"An ellipse would be a rectangle, if it only grew corners." --- What is
that? If serious, it is a puerile abuse of language, devoid of thought;
otherwise it is just math-related jest.
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation
non-halting behavior pattern on their own without prompting.
They also correctly determined that the HP proof decider would
be correct to reject its input as non-halting.
<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.
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?
<Input to LLM systems>
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
ChatGPT 5.0 had to be forced into do not guess mode https://chatgpt.com/share/68abcbd5-cee4-8011-80d7-93e8385d90d8
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:20:04 |
| Calls: | 12,098 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,863 |