[continued from previous message]   
      
   its own decider then it would not be a category error   
   to require that a halt decider provide the halt status   
   of UTM(D).   
      
   > That's just a stupidly convoluted version of what they are told   
   > under the standard Halting Problem, which informs them that for   
   > every halting decider, there are inputs for which it is wrong or   
   > nonterminating.   
   >   
   > You are not improving the standard halting problem and its theorem   
   > one iota; just vandalizing it with impertinent content and details.   
   >   
      
   I am proving that it has always been flat out incorrect.   
   Fools may still require the square root of a dead rabbit.   
      
   > Under your paradigm, a halting decider reports rubbish for some inputs,   
   > and is called correct; e.g. rejecting a halting input.   
   >   
      
   Under your program the square root of a dead rabbit   
   is not incorrect it is merely too difficult for   
   Turing machines.   
      
   > How is what you are doing different from calling a tail "leg",   
   > and claiming that canines are five-legged animals?   
   >   
   >> There   
   >> may be practical workarounds these are outside the scope   
   >> of the theoretical limits.   
   >   
   > I cannot think of any example of an engineering technique   
   > which overcomes theoretical limits.   
   >   
      
   It is a theoretical limit that no Truth predicate   
   can possibly exist when you don't exclude some   
   expressions of language  as not bearers of truth.   
      
   Is the sentence: "what time is it?" true or false?   
   I just proved that no universal truth predicate exists   
   according to one definition of a truth predicate.   
      
   If a truth predicate is defined to return true   
   when an expression is true and false otherwise   
   then a truth predicate can be defined.   
      
   Gibberish_Nonsense = " foiwrml 34590sd sflp49dcvs"   
   True(Gibberish_Nonsense)==FALSE   
   True(~Gibberish_Nonsense)==FALSE   
      
   Now a consistent truth predicate exists.   
      
   > There are no workarounds for the undecidability of halting;   
   > you can only work within the limits not overcome them.   
   >   
   >> The halting problem has always been incorrect, so just   
   >> like ZFC eliminated Russell's Paradox I have eliminated   
   >> the halting problem.   
   >   
   > Only, you've not eliminated it sufficently far that wouldn't have to   
   > tell the halting decider client to accept reality?   
   >   
   > ZFC eliminating Russel's Paradox is a formal-system-level   
   > change.   
   >   
   > You're not changing the formal system; you are staying in   
   > the Turing Model.   
   >   
      
   I am pointing out that the halting problem requirement   
   that a halt decider determines that value of UTM(P)   
   is flat out incorrect when H(P) != UTM(D).   
      
   > Also, Russel's Paradox is nonsense. Whereas a program H   
   > deciding a program P which integrates H itself in some shape   
   > is not nonsense; it is constructible.   
   >   
      
   The halting problem is a much more subtle form of   
   the same error as requiring the square root of a dead cat.   
      
   > Get it? Russel's silly set cannot even be imagined, let alone   
   > constructedd.   
   >   
      
   They did imagine it for quite a few years until   
   ZFC noticed that it could not be coherently imagined.   
      
   > Failing test cases for halting can be constructed; they   
   > are real.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)