From Newsgroup: comp.theory

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as described
in the sig.

On 26/09/2025 21:00, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:

*The conventional halting problem question is this*

[snipped]>> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*

What correct halt status value can be returned
when the input to a halt decider actually does
the opposite of whatever value is returned?

These above conventional views are proven.

Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements.
And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own formulations and then declare them to be conventional.

I think by "proof question" (s)he means the one that's used within the
proof which conventionally is "What correct halt status value can be
returned ... ? If true then it's not correct, if false then it's not
correct, if something else then it doesn't decide because a decision is
true or false. There's no correct halt status value that can be returned therefore there's no single halt decider." You see there the proof has a question, the proof question is as olcott said.

I think the criticisms levied at olcott can be reflected at the group. I
think olcott constructs his/her messages carefully but opaquely through choosing unexpected aspects to mention. It's a raw assertive style
perhaps following the advice of many a bad adviser who tells people to
be assertive. It doesn't include adjustment of context to place
assertions in the A-language or out of it.

For example "These above conventional views are proven." People assert
very strongly and uniformly that the proof question (the question used
in the proof) is as he says it is. It is thus proven (in the traditional
sense of proving a real thing by testing it in the real world) to be the
"proof question".

Each thing he says looks like it has _an_ interpretation in a normal
U-language for the group that is true. I'm not sure if the only
alternative interpretations are invalid and thus trigger negative
emotions due to the reader not needing to backtrack a parse yet
perceiving a meaning that could not have been expressed and should not
have been expressed (the former not properly preventing judgement of the
latter by a curious quirk of humanity).

It is worthy of study for the nature of an U-language for logicians and
the type of ambiguity resolution failure that it seems to be triggering.
It might or might not be a good idea to try to receive such things well personally - perhaps one's humanity would be lost by venturing far from
one's interpersonal experiences - it could cause marriage-breaking
stuff, for example.

--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 10/15/2025 4:21 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as described
in the sig.

On 26/09/2025 21:00, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-09-26 13:49, olcott wrote:

*The conventional halting problem question is this*

[snipped]>> *The conventional halting problem proof question is this*

What correct halt status value can be returned
when the input to a halt decider actually does
the opposite of whatever value is returned?

These above conventional views are proven.

Those are questions. You can't prove a question. You prove statements.
And neither of those are conventional. You can't make up your own
formulations and then declare them to be conventional.

I think by "proof question" (s)he means the one that's used within the
proof which conventionally is "What correct halt status value can be
returned ... ? If true then it's not correct, if false then it's not
correct, if something else then it doesn't decide because a decision is
true or false. There's no correct halt status value that can be returned therefore there's no single halt decider." You see there the proof has a question, the proof question is as olcott said.

Yes.

I think the criticisms levied at olcott can be reflected at the group. I think olcott constructs his/her messages carefully but opaquely through choosing unexpected aspects to mention. It's a raw assertive style
perhaps following the advice of many a bad adviser who tells people to
be assertive. It doesn't include adjustment of context to place
assertions in the A-language or out of it.

For example "These above conventional views are proven." People assert
very strongly and uniformly that the proof question (the question used
in the proof) is as he says it is. It is thus proven (in the traditional sense of proving a real thing by testing it in the real world) to be the "proof question".

Each thing he says looks like it has _an_ interpretation in a normal U-language for the group that is true. I'm not sure if the only
alternative interpretations are invalid and thus trigger negative
emotions due to the reader not needing to backtrack a parse yet
perceiving a meaning that could not have been expressed and should not
have been expressed (the former not properly preventing judgement of the latter by a curious quirk of humanity).

It is worthy of study for the nature of an U-language for logicians and
the type of ambiguity resolution failure that it seems to be triggering.
It might or might not be a good idea to try to receive such things well personally - perhaps one's humanity would be lost by venturing far from
one's interpersonal experiences - it could cause marriage-breaking
stuff, for example.

<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>

This is the key anchor of my proof and its question does
have an unequivocally correct answer that everyone here
flat out denies.

I changed it from the original to make it easier for
humans and LLM systems to understand. Each of the five
LLM systems that answered provided their reasoning on
why their answer was correct.

Claude AI, ChatGPT 4.0 and Grok all provided the same
answer on the first try without (c) or asking them not
to guess. Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 had to be told not to
guess. (c) Was added to make it clearer for humans
and both Gemini and ChatGPT 5.0 still needs (c).

--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2