[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> ignoring it.   
   >   
   > So does that reality provide an algorithm to decide the   
   > halting of any machine, or not?   
   >   
      
   Whenever the input P does not try to cheat by calling   
   its own decider H the simulation of this input by this   
   decider is the same as UTM(P).   
      
   >>> Do I use 10 different certified deciders, and take a majority vote?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> sum(3,4) computes the sum of 3+4 even if   
   >> the sum of 5+6 is required from sum(3,4).   
   >>   
   >> Whatever behavior is measured by the decider's   
   >> simulation of its input *is* the behavior that   
   >> it must report on.   
   >   
   > That's the internallhy focused discussion. How are you   
   > solving the end user's demand for halting decision?   
   >   
      
   Practical workarounds are outside of the scope of   
   theoretical limits. If I started talking about those   
   now I would never get closure on theoretical limits.   
      
   >>   
   >>> But the function which combines 10 deciders into a majority vote   
   >>> is itself a decider! And that 10-majority-decider function can be   
   >>> targeted by a diagonal test case ... and such a test case is now   
   >>> a non-input.  See?   
   >>>   
   >>>>> You are not looking at it from the perspective of a /consumer/ of a   
   >>>>> /decider product/ actually trying to use deciders and trust their   
   >>>>> answer.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Whatever is a correct simulation of an input by   
   >>>> a decider is the behavior that must be reported on.   
   >>>   
   >>> But how does the user interpret that result?   
   >>   
   >> The the input to this decider specifies a sequence   
   >> that cannot possibly reach its final halt state.   
   >   
   > But you have inputs for which that is reported, which   
   > readily halt when they are executed.   
   >   
      
   Whenever the input P does not try to cheat by calling   
   its own decider H the simulation of this input by this   
   decider is the same as UTM(P).   
      
   > Don't you think the user wants to know /that/, and not what happens   
   > under the decider (if that is different)?   
   >   
      
   As far as theoretical limits goes the user can either   
   face reality or be out-of-touch with reality.   
      
   >>> The user just wants to know, does this thing halt or not?   
   >>   
   >> The user may equally want a purely imaginary   
   >> Turing machine to bake a birthday cake.   
   >>   
   >>> How does it answer the user's question?   
   >>   
   >> As far as theoretical limitations go I have addressed   
   >> them.   
   >   
   > By address, do you mean remove?   
   >   
      
   The halting problem has always been incorrect, so just   
   like ZFC eliminated Russell's Paradox I have eliminated   
   the halting problem.   
      
   >> Practical workarounds can be addressed after I   
   >> am published and my work is accepted.   
   >   
   > Workarounds for what? You've left something unsolved in halting; what is   
   > that?   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)