XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/7/2026 2:56 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 1/6/26 8:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > i love how you agree with the consensus position but think u don't   
   >   
   >>   
   >> *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.   
   >   
   > the question's a fine expectation   
   >   
   > TMs can't represent the answer tho, and that's the real problem   
   >   
      
   *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   
      
   *yes/no questions lacking a correct yes/no answer are incorrect*   
   *yes/no questions lacking a correct yes/no answer are incorrect*   
   *yes/no questions lacking a correct yes/no answer are incorrect*   
   *yes/no questions lacking a correct yes/no answer are incorrect*   
      
   The above is a yes/no question such that both yes and   
   no are the wrong answer making the question itself incorrect.   
      
   The logical law of polar questions   
   Peter Olcott   
   Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM   
   The logical law of polar questions   
      
   When posed to a man whom has never been married,   
   the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?   
   Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor   
   no is a correct answer.   
      
   All polar questions (including incorrect polar questions)   
   have exactly one answer from the following:   
   1) No   
   2) Yes   
   3) Neither // Only applies to incorrect polar questions   
      
   As far as I know I am the original discoverer of the   
   above logical law, thus copyright 2015 by Peter Olcott.   
      
   Permission to copy and freely distribute the above   
   is hereby granted as long as it is distributed in   
   its entirely including this license agreement.   
      
   https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ   
      
   --   
   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)