On 8/10/2025 11:00 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
On 10/08/2025 13:30, Mr Flibble wrote:
If DD() halts and HHH(DD) returns a result of non-halting then HHH is not
a halt decider for DD: this just confirms that the extant Halting Problem
proofs are correct and that you have wasted the last 22 years.
It's Peter's time to waste, it's harmless, and no-one is forced
to read his articles [I don't, nor other articles of over 100 lines or
by certain ultra-prolific posters]. What surprises me is that /others/
seem happy to write something like 10000 replies/year despite /knowing/
that it makes no difference whatsoever to Peter or to his arguments or
to anyone else. Why do it, chaps? You're not convincing /anyone/, not Peter, not other posters here, and even less those who've given up on
this group. There is no magic bullet!
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
The key difference that we have now is the three LLM AI
systems agree that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" statement final halt state.
They also agree that does make HHH(DD)==0 correct when
judged entirely on that basis.
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
People here have been gaslighting me for at least three
year by refusing to agree that HHH(DD)==0 on that basis.
Since this first step of my proof must be understood
before moving on to the next step their gaslighting was
stonewalling.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)