XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   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.   
      
   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)