On 2025-10-17 15:15:02 +0000, olcott said:
Before you can understand any of this you must
first understand the semantic halting property
of the finite string input to HHH(DD).
The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is
that DD halts.
No sense diving into the middle of things until
after you first have this mandatory prerequisite.
An error in the middle of things is an error.
On 10/19/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-17 15:15:02 +0000, olcott said:Although finite strings do encode that not all finite string *INPUTS*
Before you can understand any of this you must first understand the
semantic halting property of the finite string input to HHH(DD).
The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is that DD
halts.
encode that.
On 10/19/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-17 15:15:02 +0000, olcott said:Although finite strings do encode that not
Before you can understand any of this you must
first understand the semantic halting property
of the finite string input to HHH(DD).
The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is
that DD halts.
all finite string *INPUTS* encode that.
No sense diving into the middle of things until
after you first have this mandatory prerequisite.
An error in the middle of things is an error.
No it is a lack of comprehension of the correct basis.
Am Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:08:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-17 15:15:02 +0000, olcott said:Although finite strings do encode that not all finite string *INPUTS*
Before you can understand any of this you must first understand the
semantic halting property of the finite string input to HHH(DD).
The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is that DD
halts.
encode that.
The encoding of DD specifies a call to the terminating HHH.
On 2025-10-19 16:08:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-17 15:15:02 +0000, olcott said:Although finite strings do encode that not
Before you can understand any of this you must
first understand the semantic halting property
of the finite string input to HHH(DD).
The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is
that DD halts.
all finite string *INPUTS* encode that.
No sense diving into the middle of things until
after you first have this mandatory prerequisite.
An error in the middle of things is an error.
No it is a lack of comprehension of the correct basis.
Not necessarily. There are other possibilities to err in the middle
of things. But you are totally wrong as your lack of comprenesion
indeed contributes to a large part of your errors.
On 10/19/2025 1:43 PM, joes wrote:It has the same code.
Am Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:08:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
The is not the HHH that the simulated DD() calls.The encoding of DD specifies a call to the terminating HHH.The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is that DDAlthough finite strings do encode that not all finite string *INPUTS*
halts.
encode that.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:24:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 1:43 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:08:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
It has the same code.The is not the HHH that the simulated DD() calls.The encoding of DD specifies a call to the terminating HHH.The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is that DD >>>>> halts.Although finite strings do encode that not all finite string *INPUTS*
encode that.
On 10/20/2025 12:18 PM, joes wrote:What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:24:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 1:43 PM, joes wrote:
You ignore important details.It has the same code.The encoding of DD specifies a call to the terminating HHH.The is not the HHH that the simulated DD() calls.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:34:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:18 PM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:24:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 1:43 PM, joes wrote:
What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.You ignore important details.It has the same code.The encoding of DD specifies a call to the terminating HHH.The is not the HHH that the simulated DD() calls.
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:The input contains an encoding of the abort.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:34:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules
On 10/20/2025 12:18 PM, joes wrote:What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:24:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 1:43 PM, joes wrote:
You ignore important details.It has the same code.The encoding of DD specifies a call to the terminating HHH.The is not the HHH that the simulated DD() calls.
everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping from
input finite strings.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:47:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:The input contains an encoding of the abort.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:34:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules
On 10/20/2025 12:18 PM, joes wrote:What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:24:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 1:43 PM, joes wrote:
You ignore important details.It has the same code.The encoding of DD specifies a call to the terminating HHH.The is not the HHH that the simulated DD() calls.
everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping from
input finite strings.
On 10/20/2025 1:09 PM, joes wrote:It is not met. Whether an input halts does not depend on what HHH says.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:47:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
If (a) is met (and it is met) then the input specifies non haltingThe input contains an encoding of the abort.What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules
everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping
from input finite strings.
behavior. Non-halting is not and never has been the same thing as
stopping running or yanking the power cord would prove that all programs halt.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:42:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 1:09 PM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:47:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
It is not met. Whether an input halts does not depend on what HHH says.If (a) is met (and it is met) then the input specifies non haltingThe input contains an encoding of the abort.What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules
everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping
from input finite strings.
behavior. Non-halting is not and never has been the same thing as
stopping running or yanking the power cord would prove that all programs
halt.
On 10/20/2025 1:09 PM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:47:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:The input contains an encoding of the abort.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:34:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules
On 10/20/2025 12:18 PM, joes wrote:What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:24:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2025 1:43 PM, joes wrote:
You ignore important details.It has the same code.The encoding of DD specifies a call to the terminating HHH.The is not the HHH that the simulated DD() calls.
everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping from
input finite strings.
If (a) is met (and it is met) then the input specifies non halting
On 10/20/2025 2:21 PM, joes wrote:That’s not the input.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:42:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:Whether the directly executed DD() halts or not *does depend on what
On 10/20/2025 1:09 PM, joes wrote:It is not met. Whether an input halts does not depend on what HHH says.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:47:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
If (a) is met (and it is met) then the input specifies non haltingThe input contains an encoding of the abort.What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules
everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping
from input finite strings.
behavior. Non-halting is not and never has been the same thing as
stopping running or yanking the power cord would prove that all
programs halt.
HHH(DD) says* if HHH(DD) says 1, then DD() gets stuck in a loop.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 14:30:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 2:21 PM, joes wrote:That’s not the input.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:42:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:Whether the directly executed DD() halts or not *does depend on what
On 10/20/2025 1:09 PM, joes wrote:It is not met. Whether an input halts does not depend on what HHH says.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:47:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
If (a) is met (and it is met) then the input specifies non haltingThe input contains an encoding of the abort.What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules >>>>>> everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping >>>>>> from input finite strings.
behavior. Non-halting is not and never has been the same thing as
stopping running or yanking the power cord would prove that all
programs halt.
HHH(DD) says* if HHH(DD) says 1, then DD() gets stuck in a loop.
On 10/20/2025 5:15 PM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 14:30:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 2:21 PM, joes wrote:That’s not the input.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:42:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:HHH(DD) says* if HHH(DD) says 1, then DD() gets stuck in a loop.
On 10/20/2025 1:09 PM, joes wrote:It is not met. Whether an input halts does not depend on what HHH says. >>> Whether the directly executed DD() halts or not *does depend on what
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:47:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
If (a) is met (and it is met) then the input specifies non haltingThe input contains an encoding of the abort.What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules >>>>>>> everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping >>>>>>> from input finite strings.
behavior. Non-halting is not and never has been the same thing as
stopping running or yanking the power cord would prove that all
programs halt.
<Input to LLM systems>
Perform the complete simulation specified in main() and provide a
full execution trace before doing anything else.
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It correctly detects that its simulated input cannot
possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then:
abort simulation and return 0 rejecting its input as non-halting.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
(c) Neither (a) nor (b) is correct 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;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
</Input to LLM systems>
I adapted the above to conform to what Kaz said
to give it an escape hatch.
Just the updated three-way halts does_not_halt neither. https://claude.ai/share/8c4a4fdc-5faf-4525-8c08-e133d258da88
On 10/20/2025 5:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/20/2025 5:15 PM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 14:30:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 2:21 PM, joes wrote:That’s not the input.
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:42:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:Whether the directly executed DD() halts or not *does depend on what
On 10/20/2025 1:09 PM, joes wrote:It is not met. Whether an input halts does not depend on what HHH
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:47:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/20/2025 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
If (a) is met (and it is met) then the input specifies non halting >>>>>> behavior. Non-halting is not and never has been the same thing asThe input contains an encoding of the abort.What details? Every DD calls HHH, and every HHH aborts.The semantic halting property of the input finite string overrules >>>>>>>> everything else because Turing machines only compute their mapping >>>>>>>> from input finite strings.
stopping running or yanking the power cord would prove that all
programs halt.
says.
HHH(DD) says* if HHH(DD) says 1, then DD() gets stuck in a loop.
<Input to LLM systems>
Perform the complete simulation specified in main() and provide a
full execution trace before doing anything else.
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It correctly detects that its simulated input cannot
possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then:
abort simulation and return 0 rejecting its input as non-halting.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
(c) Neither (a) nor (b) is correct 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;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
</Input to LLM systems>
I adapted the above to conform to what Kaz said
to give it an escape hatch.
Just the updated three-way halts does_not_halt neither.
https://claude.ai/share/8c4a4fdc-5faf-4525-8c08-e133d258da88
Grok, Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 all agree.
Grok, Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 all agree.
On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Grok, Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 all agree.
Did you see Chris's AI output which sharply criticizes your ideas?
You can get AI to produce text expressing agreement with almost anything
you want in a sufficiently long chat in which you post "brow-beating" admonishments on every point.
Part of the reason is that all the production AI's offered to the public
have a system prompt not to antagonize the user too much. At least in
topics that don't matter.
E.g. you will probably a harder time convincing AI that racism or
self-harm are acceptable than some obscure falsehood specialized in
computer science or math.
(Still, AI chatbots /have/ encouraged users in self-harm; this is documented.)
On 10/20/2025 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Grok, Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 all agree.
Did you see Chris's AI output which sharply criticizes your ideas?
You can get AI to produce text expressing agreement with almost anything
you want in a sufficiently long chat in which you post "brow-beating"
admonishments on every point.
Part of the reason is that all the production AI's offered to the public
have a system prompt not to antagonize the user too much. At least in
topics that don't matter.
E.g. you will probably a harder time convincing AI that racism or
self-harm are acceptable than some obscure falsehood specialized in
computer science or math.
(Still, AI chatbots /have/ encouraged users in self-harm; this is
documented.)
Like I said in my prior none of your rebuttals have
ever had any basis in sound reasoning. Almost none
of your rebuttals have had any basis in reasoning
at all.
On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/20/2025 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Grok, Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 all agree.
Did you see Chris's AI output which sharply criticizes your ideas?
You can get AI to produce text expressing agreement with almost anything >>> you want in a sufficiently long chat in which you post "brow-beating"
admonishments on every point.
Part of the reason is that all the production AI's offered to the public >>> have a system prompt not to antagonize the user too much. At least in
topics that don't matter.
E.g. you will probably a harder time convincing AI that racism or
self-harm are acceptable than some obscure falsehood specialized in
computer science or math.
(Still, AI chatbots /have/ encouraged users in self-harm; this is
documented.)
Like I said in my prior none of your rebuttals have
ever had any basis in sound reasoning. Almost none
of your rebuttals have had any basis in reasoning
at all.
Except for the times when you called me your "best reviewer" and whatnot, LOL.
That was more than 48 hours ago, so the memory vanished into the ether ...
On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/20/2025 6:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Grok, Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 all agree.
Did you see Chris's AI output which sharply criticizes your ideas?
You can get AI to produce text expressing agreement with almost anything >>> you want in a sufficiently long chat in which you post "brow-beating"
admonishments on every point.
Part of the reason is that all the production AI's offered to the public >>> have a system prompt not to antagonize the user too much. At least in
topics that don't matter.
E.g. you will probably a harder time convincing AI that racism or
self-harm are acceptable than some obscure falsehood specialized in
computer science or math.
(Still, AI chatbots /have/ encouraged users in self-harm; this is
documented.)
Like I said in my prior none of your rebuttals have
ever had any basis in sound reasoning. Almost none
of your rebuttals have had any basis in reasoning
at all.
Except for the times when you called me your "best reviewer" and whatnot, LOL.
That was more than 48 hours ago, so the memory vanished into the ether ...
On 10/20/2025 8:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Like I said in my prior none of your rebuttals have
ever had any basis in sound reasoning. Almost none
of your rebuttals have had any basis in reasoning
at all.
Except for the times when you called me your "best reviewer" and whatnot, LOL.
Thunderbird searched the body of all the
posts and it only has me calling Ben my
best reviewer on the words that professor
Sipser agreed to.
On 5/30/2021 11:18 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
By suggesting that they kill-file then unnecessary chatter is reduced.
This seems to be the final draft of the diagonalization argument's
error. I am very very happy that you suggested that I look into that.
I was able to completely abolish the contradiction.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Refutation_of_Halting_Problem_Diagonalization_Argument
Your stop-problem-issues are interesting no one here.
They're generic to any language, so they're off-topic here.
Kaz was my best reviewer.
Kaz was my best reviewer.
Then Kaz made the same mistake like you.
Kaz suggested that I study diagonalization and now I can easily refute
this much simpler proof. My refutation is on page 1 and Sipser's whole
proof is on page 2. So far the only critiques have been about punctuation.
You need to get Thunderbird where you can do a keyword
search on "best reviewer" for the body text as Quick Filter
not the other filter.
On May 30, 2021, 10:13:11 PM olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/2021 11:18 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
By suggesting that they kill-file then unnecessary chatter is reduced. >>>> This seems to be the final draft of the diagonalization argument's
error. I am very very happy that you suggested that I look into that.
I was able to completely abolish the contradiction.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Refutation_of_Halting_Problem_Diagonalization_Argument
Your stop-problem-issues are interesting no one here.
They're generic to any language, so they're off-topic here.
Kaz was my best reviewer.
LOL ...
On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
You need to get Thunderbird where you can do a keyword
I simply don't use an e-mail program for Usenet.
search on "best reviewer" for the body text as Quick Filter
not the other filter.
Using a news-reading agent connected to an NNTP server, you can only
search articles that the server has retained.
For anything beyond your server's article retention for that
newsgroup, you need to either find a server with a longer retention
(than eternal-september? good luck) or go to an archive like Google
Groups.
Using Google Groups, I easily found a 2021 post where you said
called me "best reviewer".
On May 30, 2021, 10:13:11 PM olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/2021 11:18 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
By suggesting that they kill-file then unnecessary chatter is reduced. >>>>> This seems to be the final draft of the diagonalization argument's
error. I am very very happy that you suggested that I look into that. >>>>> I was able to completely abolish the contradiction.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Refutation_of_Halting_Problem_Diagonalization_Argument
Your stop-problem-issues are interesting no one here.
They're generic to any language, so they're off-topic here.
Kaz was my best reviewer.
LOL ...
Yes back in 2021 you were probably my best reviewer.
Of recent human reviewers you are the best of the
frequent responders. Mike is by far the best at
actually understanding my code. Other recent
less frequent responders are also pretty good.
On 10/20/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:08:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-17 15:15:02 +0000, olcott said:Although finite strings do encode that not
Before you can understand any of this you must
first understand the semantic halting property
of the finite string input to HHH(DD).
The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is
that DD halts.
all finite string *INPUTS* encode that.
No sense diving into the middle of things until
after you first have this mandatory prerequisite.
An error in the middle of things is an error.
No it is a lack of comprehension of the correct basis.
Not necessarily. There are other possibilities to err in the middle
of things. But you are totally wrong as your lack of comprenesion
indeed contributes to a large part of your errors.
<Input to LLM systems>
Please think this all the way through without making any guesses
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It correctly detects that its simulated input cannot
possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then:
abort simulation and return 0 rejecting its input as non-halting.
(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;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
</Input to LLM systems>
The above is the correct basis that conclusively proves
that the input to HHH(DD) specifies non-halting behavior
that is correct rejected.
On 2025-10-20 17:06:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/20/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:08:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-17 15:15:02 +0000, olcott said:Although finite strings do encode that not
Before you can understand any of this you must
first understand the semantic halting property
of the finite string input to HHH(DD).
The only semantic property relevant to the halting problem is
that DD halts.
all finite string *INPUTS* encode that.
No sense diving into the middle of things until
after you first have this mandatory prerequisite.
An error in the middle of things is an error.
No it is a lack of comprehension of the correct basis.
Not necessarily. There are other possibilities to err in the middle
of things. But you are totally wrong as your lack of comprenesion
indeed contributes to a large part of your errors.
<Input to LLM systems>
Please think this all the way through without making any guesses
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It correctly detects that its simulated input cannot
possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then:
abort simulation and return 0 rejecting its input as non-halting. >>
(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;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
</Input to LLM systems>
The above is the correct basis that conclusively proves
that the input to HHH(DD) specifies non-halting behavior
that is correct rejected.
A question is a correct basis for an answer. The hypotheses in the
question are of course avaible for other uses but the proof that
the input to HHH specifies a non-halting behaviour is not possible
without more hypotheses.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,073 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 212:20:07 |
| Calls: | 13,782 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,987 |
| D/L today: |
4,559 files (1,246M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,434,554 |