XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 12.12.2025 klo 3.44:   
   > On 12/11/2025 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 12/11/25 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 12/11/2025 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/11/25 8:47 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/11/2025 6:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/10/25 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/10/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/10/25 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/10/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/10/25 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> *It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> When the halting problem requires a halt decider   
   >>>>>>>>>>> to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this   
   >>>>>>>>>>> is always a category error.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The corrected halting problem requires a Turing   
   >>>>>>>>>>> machine decider to report in the behavior that   
   >>>>>>>>>>> its finite string input specifies.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And since the input specifies the behavior of the Turing   
   >>>>>>>>>> Machine it represents when run,   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Counter-factual, but then you have only ever been   
   >>>>>>>>> a somewhat smart bot stuck in rebuttal mode.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> WHy do you say that?   
   >>>>>>>> What grounds do you have for that claim?   
   >>>>>>>> Do you even know what you are saying?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That is the behavior pattern that you have been   
   >>>>>>> consistently showing with every post for years.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You mean asking you to actual prove your claims?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I always prove my claims you always dismiss them   
   >>>>> with dogma and rhetoric utterly bereft of any of   
   >>>>> any supporting reasoning like you just did.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, you argue for them based on unsupported claims.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> TO PROVE something, you need to refer to the accepted AXIOM,   
   >>>> DEFINITIONS, and proven theorms in the system.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> All you are doing is proving you don't know what you are talking   
   >>>> about and don't care how much reckless stupidity you show.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> int DD()   
   >>>>> {   
   >>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>> }   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is a verified fact that N steps of DD simulated   
   >>>>> by HHH according to the semantics of the C programming   
   >>>>> do prove a behavior pattern that cannot possibly reach   
   >>>>> the "return" statement final halt state of DD in any   
   >>>>> number of steps.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No  it doesn't. As your described code is not a "Program", AS IT IS   
   >>>> MISSING THE NEEDD CODE OF HHH.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> That HHH simulates DD according to the semantics of   
   >>> C is fully enough specification. We could simply   
   >>> imagine that HHH is a C emulator that can invoke   
   >>> an instance of itself recursively.   
   >>   
   >> But it CAN'T for the input given,   
      
   > If the above is the only thing in DD.c and   
   > HHH is an executable that   
      
   > (a) Interprets DD.c   
   > (b) Recognizes the call to itself and invokes   
   > another instance of itself with the function   
   > body of DD as char* input...   
      
   then the decider will report about a non-input, which is not what   
   the halting problem requires. The halting problmem requires that   
   the input fully specifies the conputation asked about, which in   
   case of DD means that the input must also specify how the value of   
   HHH(DD) is computed.   
      
   The original halting problem is about Turing machines. An input to   
   a Turing machine must be complete because a Turing machine cannot   
   see anything else. If your input refers to something outside it   
   then it is not relevant to the halting problem.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)