XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/15/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 15/12/2025 02:39, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/14/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/14/25 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/14/2025 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/14/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/14/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 13/12/2025 23:32, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> All of the textbooks require halt deciders to   
   >>>>>>>> report on the behavior of machine M on input w.   
   >>>>>>>> This may be easy to understand yet not precisely   
   >>>>>>>> accurate.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That is precisely accurate. The problem is exactly what the problem   
   >>>>>>> statement says. You may define your problem differently but then   
   >>>>>>> you just have another problem. The halting problem still is what   
   >>>>>>> it was.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> All the textbooks simply ignore that no Turing   
   >>>>>> machine can possibly compute the mapping from   
   >>>>>> the behavior from another actual Turing machine.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sure it can, from the representation of it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Just like it can add two numbers by using representatins.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> They can only compute the mapping from a finite   
   >>>>>> string input that is a mere proxy for this behavior.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And the proxy represents that same behavior, so it must get the   
   >>>>> same result.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As I have conclusively proved many thousands of   
   >>>> times that the behavior of DD AS AN ACTUAL INPUT   
   >>>> to HHH does SPECIFY non-halting behavior.   
   >>>   
   >>> No you haven't,   
   >> I say that I have proven this   
   >> DD AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)   
   >   
   > You keep repeating that the meaning of DD as imput ot HHH is different   
   > from the meaning of DD per se. But you never say what that different   
   > meaning is.   
   >   
      
   Or I do say it 500 times and you never notice.   
   DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C   
   cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement   
   final halt state.   
      
   > More importantly, you never tell what input to HHH would mean the   
   > same as DD per se so HHH is not a halt decider and is not relevant   
   > to any discossion about halt deciders.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)