On 10/15/2025 9:50 AM, tTh wrote:

On 10/15/25 14:32, olcott wrote:

Here is that full proof.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68eef2df-0f10-8011-8e92-264651cc518c

ÿÿ Can you take those insanity out of comp.lang.c ?

I just needed a couple of cross posts.
Here is how it is related to C/C++

<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) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
abort simulation and return 0.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement:
return 1.
(c) If HHH must abort its simulation to prevent its own non-termination
then HHH is correct to abort this simulation and return 0.

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>

ChatGPT 4.0, Claude AI, ChatGPT 5.0, Grok and Gemini
all agreed that HHH(DD) should reject its input as
non-halting by returning 0. They also all were able
to provide the details of their reasoning for deriving
this conclusion.

ChatGPT paraphrase of my own words that it proves
are correct by its own reasoning.

"The halting problem, as classically formulated, relies
on an inferential step that is not justified by a
continuous chain of semantic entailment from its initial
stipulations."

https://chatgpt.com/share/68ef97b5-6770-8011-9aad-323009ca7841

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.0
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)