XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/1/2025 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 4.12:   
   >> On 11/30/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-30, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> HHH does correctly report that DD simulated   
   >>>> by HHH (according to the semantics of the C   
   >>>> programming language) does not halt.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> (1) It is a fact that this input to HHH(DD) does specify   
   >>      non-halting behavior according to this definition   
   >>      that you erased:   
   >>   
   >> An input DD that halts for a simulating termination   
   >> analyzer HHH is defined as DD reaching its own simulated   
   >> "return" statement while DD is being simulated by HHH.   
   >   
   > Which means that HHH is not a halting decider or a partial halting   
   > decider. And that HHH does not serve any useful purpose.   
   >   
      
   If you carefully studied all of what I said you   
   would see that the halting problem is a category   
   error because it directly contradicts one of the   
   foundational axioms of computer science.   
      
   Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from   
   their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject   
   state on the basis that this [finite string] input   
   specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic   
   property.   
      
   When we actually measure this property the only way   
   that we can: DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach   
   its own simulated "return" statement final halt state   
   while DD is being simulated by HHH. We see that DD   
   does specify a non-halting sequence.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)