XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   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   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   arising us out of the computing dark ages,   
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)