XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.00:   
   > On 12/8/2025 3:04 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 5.14:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>> Within the verified truth of the above paragraph   
   >>> *that took me three years to write* the halting   
   >>> problem is proved to be incorrect in that it requires   
   >>> that halting be computed from behavior other than   
   >>> the actual behavior that the actual input actually   
   >>> specifies as measured by a UTM based halt decider.   
   >>   
   >> The halting problem as usually posed asks for a method to determine   
   >> about every computation whether it halts or runs forever. Some   
   >> formulations specify further that the solution shall be expressed   
   >> as a Turing machine that can be given a description of the computation.   
   >   
   > The mistake that I have fully elaborated many dozens   
   > of times and so far everyone has ignored is that the   
   > halting problem as specified requires a halt decider   
   > to report on a behavior that differs from the behavior   
   > that its actual finite string input actually specifies.   
      
   When you start with a false claim you can infer nore false claims.   
   But false claims are false no matter what you said about them.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)