XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:   
   >> Just an external observation:   
   >>   
   >> A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded   
   >> from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the   
   >> halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain practical things (in   
   >> code analysis) are not even tried because it's assumed that they are   
   >> bound by the halting problem.   
   >>   
   >> In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. And   
   >> even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular analysis   
   >> branch by marking it as inconclusive.   
   >>   
   >> Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a dogma,   
   >> at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001   
   >> probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.   
   >   
   > god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,   
   >   
   > but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for any   
   > given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for all   
   > machiens ...   
   >   
   > heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist a   
   > partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a paradox   
   > would have to address all possible partial deciders in a computable   
   > fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to classical computing.   
   > therefore some true decider must exist for any given machine that   
   > exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge thru a general interface.   
   >   
      
   For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite   
   of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.   
      
   > i think the actual problem is the TM computing is not sufficient to   
   > describe all computable relationships. TM computing is considered the   
   > gold-standard for what is computable, but we haven't actually proved that.   
   >   
   > the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof. we've been treating it as a   
   > law ... but we never actually justified that it should be law. this   
   > whole time we've been discarding things like a general halting decidable   
   > because TM computing can be used to create paradoxes in regards to it,   
   > but maybe the problem is that TM computing is not sufficient to describe   
   > a general halting decider, not that a general halting decider is   
   > impossible.   
   >   
   > that's my new attack vector on the consensus understanding: the CT   
   > thesis. i am to describe a general algo that *we* can obviously compute   
   > using deterministic steps, but such algo cannot be funneled thru a   
   > general interface because TM computing will read and paradox it.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> On 12/11/2025 12:03 AM, polcott wrote:   
   >>> On 12/10/2025 4:58 PM, wij wrote:   
   >>>> On Wed, 2025-12-10 at 16:43 -0600, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you honestly admit you are solving POO Problem, everything is fine.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> *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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 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)