XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   *I think that I fixed that*   
   It seems to me that if something cannot be computed   
   by applying finite string transformation rules to   
   input finite strings then it cannot be computed.   
      
   As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible   
   then the thesis turns into a proof.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)