• Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed --- Updated fro

    From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 25 15:25:36 2025
    On 25/08/2025 15:12, olcott wrote:
    On 8/25/2025 5:30 AM, Richard Harnden wrote:
    On 24/08/2025 23:19, olcott wrote:
    On 8/24/2025 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/6/2004 9:11 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
    One very simple transformation of the problem into a
    solvable problem
    is to convert the Boolean function DoesItHalt() into a
    tertiary response:
    True, False, Neither.

    if (DoesItHalt() == True)
       while(True)   // loop forever
         ;
    else if (DoesItHalt() == False)
       return False;

    else if  (DoesItHalt() == NeitherTrueNorFalse)
       return NeitherTrueNorFalse;

    So the original Halting Problem was incorrectly formed
    specifically
    because it was framed as a Boolean function, thus failing to
    account
    for possible inputs that result in a reply other than True
    or False.






    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?


    Prior to Pythagoras there was a universal
    consensus that the Earth was flat.

    "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed
    at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
    - Carl Sagan.

    This was my very first post on the HP back in 2004.
    Because I have worked on this for 21 years I have
    noticed key details that no one else has ever bothered
    to notice.

    But you haven't yet noticed that DD halts.

    Five different LLM systems are in consensus in their
    reverse engineering of my reasoning from this basis:

    Roll 5d6. Keep your 6s and roll again. Keep rolling until you
    have five 6s.

    <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.

    ...and watch DD grind to an unpredicted halt.

    They agree on this key fact DD correctly simulated by
    HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
    final halt state in any finite number of steps.

    And yet DD halts.

    Most everyone on this forum have been gaslighting me
    on this key point for three years.

    It isn't gaslighting to point out that "non-halting" is not an
    accurate simulation of "halting".

    --
    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)