[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> if L does exist, then there must be some L-state machine U which   
   >>>>>>> cannot be decided on *by any partial* decider, because the BB   
   >>>>>>> computation would find it and use it   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> We can sometimes establish upper and lower bounds on the value   
   >>>>>>>> of BB(n), is that what you mean by "a limit L"?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> if you believe the halting problem, then BB must have a limit   
   >>>>>>>>> L, or else halting becomes generally solvable using the BB   
   >>>>>>>>> function. see, if you can compute the BB number for any N-state   
   >>>>>>>>> machines, then for any N-state machine u can just run the N-   
   >>>>>>>>> state machine until BB number of steps. any machine that halts   
   >>>>>>>>> on or before BB(N) steps halts, any that run past must be   
   >>>>>>>>> nonhalting   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No, if we could establish an upper limit for BB(n) for all n,   
   >>>>>>>> then we could solve the hatling problem, as we have an upper   
   >>>>>>>> limit for the number of steps we need to simulate the machine.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> BB(n) has a value, but for sufficiently large values of n, we   
   >>>>>>>> don't have an upper bound for BB(n).   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> and the problem with allowing for partial decidability is that   
   >>>>>>>>> BB can run continually run more and more deciders in parallel,   
   >>>>>>>>> on every N- state machine, until one comes back with an halting   
   >>>>>>>>> answer, for every N-state machine, which then it can the use to   
   >>>>>>>>> decide what the BB number is for any N ...   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> So, what BB are you running? Or are you misusing "running" to   
   >>>>>>>> try to mean somehow trying to calculate?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> contradicting the concept it must have a limit L, where some L-   
   >>>>>>>>> state machine cannot be decidable by *any* partial decider on   
   >>>>>>>>> the matter,   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No, it can have a limit, just not a KNOWN limit.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> consensus is there can a known limit L to the BB function, and   
   >>>>>>> proofs have been put out in regards to this   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> so no richard, partial decidability does not work if BB is to   
   >>>>>>>>> have a limit   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You only have the problem is BB has a KNOWN limit. Again, you   
   >>>>>>>> trip up on assuming you can know any answer you want.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That some things are not knowable breaks your logic.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I just glanced at your paper and skipped to the conclusion.   
   >>>>>> Why do we care about the undecidability of the halting problem?   
   >>>>>> Because undecidability in general (if it is correct) shows   
   >>>>>> that truth itself is broken. Truth itself cannot be broken.   
   >>>>>> This is the only reason why I have worked on these things   
   >>>>>> for 28 years.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> because it makes us suck as developing and maintaining software,   
   >>>>> and as a 35 year old burnt out SWE, i'm tired of living in a world   
   >>>>> running off sucky software. it really is limiting our potential,   
   >>>>> and i want my soon to be born son to have a far better experience   
   >>>>> with this shit than i did.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> a consequence of accepting the halting problem is then necessarily   
   >>>>> accepting proof against *all* semantic deciders, barring us from   
   >>>>> agreeing on what such general deciders might be   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Exactly: Tarski even "proved" that we can't even directly   
   >>>> compute what is true. This lets dangerous liars get away   
   >>>> with their dangerous lies.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> this has lead to not only an unnecessary explosion in complexity of   
   >>>>> software engineering, because we can't generally compute semantic   
   >>>>> (turing) equivalence,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> but the general trend in deploying software that doesn't have   
   >>>>> computed semantic proofs guaranteeing they actually do what we want   
   >>>>> them to do.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yes without computing halting total proof of   
   >>>> correctness is impossible.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> "testing" is poor substitute for doing so, but that's the most we   
   >>>>> can agree upon due to the current theory of computing.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> i think my ideas might contribute to dealing with incompleteness in   
   >>>>> fundamental math more generally ... like producing more refined   
   >>>>> limits to it's philosophical impact. tho idk if it can be gotten   
   >>>>> rid of completely, anymore than we can get rid of the words "this   
   >>>>> statement is false"   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't think that there actually are any limits   
   >>>> except for expressions requiring infinite proofs.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> but i am currently focused on the theory of computing and not   
   >>>>> anything more generally. the fundamental objects comprising the   
   >>>>> theory of computing (machines) are far more constrained in their   
   >>>>> definitions than what set theory needs to encompass, and within   
   >>>>> those constraints i think i can twist the consensus into some   
   >>>>> contradiction that are just entirely ignorant of atm   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I have explored all of the key areas. None of them   
   >>>> can be made as 100% perfectly concrete and unequivocal   
   >>>> as computing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> that's the slam dunk left that i need. i have a means to rectify   
   >>>>> whatever contradiction we find thru the use of RTMs, but i'm still   
   >>>>> teasing out the contradiction that will *force* others to notice   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I do have my refutation of the halting problem itself   
   >>>> boiled down to a rough draft of two first principles.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When the halting problem requires a halt decider   
   >>>> to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this   
   >>>> is always a category error because Turing machines   
   >>>> only take finite string inputs.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The corrected halting problem requires a Turing   
   >>>> machine decider to report in the behavior that its   
   >>>> actual finite string input actually specifies.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> polcott, i'm working on making the halting problem complete and   
   >>> consistent in regards to a subset of the improved "reflective turing   
   >>> machines" that encompasses all useful computations   
   >>>   
   >>> i'm sorry, but not about trying to reaffirm the halting function as   
   >>> still uncomputable by calling it a category error   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I do compute the halting function correctly.   
   >   
   > the halting *function* is an abstract mathematical object that maps a   
   > machine description to whether the machine described halts or not, not   
   > the associated machine description that attempts to compute this   
   >   
      
   All Turing machines only compute the mapping   
   from input finite strings to some value.   
   On this basis I do compute halting correctly.   
      
   >> I have been doing this for more than three years.   
   >> We probably should not be spamming alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   >   
   > i hang out there tho, i have my own reasons for posting this there   
   >   
      
   Theory of computation issues are disrespectful   
   spam to that group that violate Buddhist compassion.   
      
   I was a long time poster to alt.zen. I still   
   have 8969 messages posted there since 2005.   
      
   Also my great grand uncle Henry Steel Olcott   
   was a very famous Buddhist.   
      
   >>   
   >> int sum(int x, int y){return x + y;}   
   >> sum(3,2) should return 5 and it is incorrect   
   >> to require sum(3,2) to return the sum of 5+6.   
   >>   
   >   
   > u can argue about what computing machines actually exist all u want, and   
   > whether anything actually computes the halting *function*, i'm not going   
   > to argue over what the halting *function* itself is   
   >   
      
   Then you get the wrong answer.   
      
   In computability theory and computational complexity   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)