XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/12/26 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/12/26 5:09 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 1/12/26 4:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/6/26 10:03 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   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope, because the proof doesn't actually need to talk about HOW the   
   >>> decider actually made its decision, and thus not limited to Turing   
   >>> Machines.   
   >>>   
   >>> All it needs is that the decider be limited by the rules of a   
   >>> computation.   
   >>>   
   >>> All the arguements against the proof seem to begin with the error   
   >>> that the decider can be changed after the fact and such change   
   >>> changes the input to match, but that breaks the fundamental property   
   >>> of computations, that they are fixed algorithms   
   >>>   
   >>> The proof shows that the SPECIFIC decider that the input was made   
   >>> from will get the wrong answer, and we can make such an input for ANY   
   >>> specific decider, and thus no decider can get all answers correct.   
   >>>   
   >>> That the input HAS a correct answer (just the opposite of what that   
   >>> specific decider gives) shows that there IS a correct answer, so   
   >>> there is nothing wrong about the question of its halting, and thus a   
   >>> non- answer like "its behavior is contrary" is valid.   
   >>>   
   >>> Everyone trying to make the arguements just shows they don't   
   >>> understand the basics of what a computation is.   
   >>   
   >> missed ya dick!   
   >>   
   >> given that deciders are inherently part of the execution path they are   
   >> deciding on ... ofc deciders can modify their behavior based on an   
   >> input which they are included within, like they can modify their   
   >> behavior based on the properties of the input.   
   >   
   > No, that behavior had to always have been in them, and thus seen by the   
   > "pathological" input.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> this is how partial deciders can intelligently block on responding to   
   >> input that cannot be answered thru their particular interface.   
   >>   
   >> i'm not aware of any method that can prove a partial decider can't be   
   >> more efficient that brute force, because again, they can block when   
   >> encountering a paradox specific to their interface.   
   >   
   > How does "brute force" determine non-halting?   
      
   well it does for the halting computations (bounded time, bounded space),   
      
   and proper infinite loops (unbounded time, bounded space),   
      
   just not runaway infinite computation (unbounded time, unbounded space)   
      
   >   
   > And nothing in the theory disagrees with partial halt deciders existing,   
   > they just can NEVER give an answer to the pathological program based on   
   > them, as if they give an answer, it will be wrong.   
      
   which means: for any given machine, there is a decider out there that   
   must decide correctly on it. so, for any given machine there is a method   
   that does correctly decide on it without ever given any wrong answers to   
   any other machine (tho it may not give answers at times).   
      
   as a man, i'm not subject to having my output read and contradicted like   
   turing machine deciders are. i'm not subject to having to block   
   indefinitely because some input is pathological to me. and because some   
   method must exist that can correct decide on any given input... i can   
   know that method for any given input, and therefor i can decide on any   
   given input.   
      
   this is why i'm really starting to think the ct-thesis is cooked. you   
   say i can't do that because turing machines can't do that ... but   
   where's the proof that turing machine encompass all of computing? why am   
   i limited by the absolute nonsense that is turing machines producing   
   pathological input to themselves?   
      
   because turing machines *are* the fundamentals of computation??? but   
   again: that's just an assumption. we never proved it, yet here you are   
   treating it like unquestionable law.   
      
   that's the flaw bro, one we've been sitting on for almost a century. i   
   don't even have a proof to deconstruct, it's literally just an   
   assumption, so all i need to do is construct the scenarios where   
   something is obviously generally computable, but that computation cannot   
   be generally expressed thru a turing machine computation input/ouput   
   specification.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> furthermore this doesn't disprove a general algorithm backing the   
   >> partial deciders, all the general algorithm needs is a "self" input   
   >> which identifies the particular interface it's computing for. this   
   >> general algo for partial deciders will have three outputs: HALTS,   
   >> LOOPS, and PARADOX. when partial deciders receive PARADOX back from   
   >> their algo run they will then just loop forever to never respond.   
   >   
   > Sure it does.   
   >   
   > The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it   
      
   i'm defining the algo, so i say it does   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)