XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/6/2026 9:03 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular   
   > interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit   
   >   
      
   No it is not that.   
   After spending 20,000 hours on this over 20 years   
   equivalent to ten full time years.   
      
   *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
      
   The simplest 100% correct resolution to the   
   actual definition of the Halting Problem   
   (that includes the counter-example input)   
   Is that (in the case of the counter-example input)   
   The halting problem asks a yes/no question   
   that has no correct yes/no answer.   
      
   *The HP asks an incorrect question*   
   *The HP asks an incorrect question*   
   *The HP asks an incorrect question*   
   *The HP asks an incorrect question*   
      
   We can only get to your idea of a different   
   interface when we change the definition of   
   that Halting Problem. The original problem   
   itself is simply incorrect.   
      
   *I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*   
   *I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*   
   *I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*   
   *I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*   
      
   function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):   
      if YouSayItHalts () then   
        while true do {}   
      else   
        return false;   
      
   Does this program Halt?   
      
   (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered   
     translated to Boolean as the function's input   
     parameter)   
      
   Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!   
      
   https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ   
      
      
   --   
   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)