XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/15/2025 7:21 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > In article <20251014202441.931@kylheku.com>,   
   > Kaz Kylheku  <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-15, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/14/2025 9:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-15, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> 5. In short   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The halting problem as usually formalized is syntactically consistent   
   >>>>> only because it pretends that U(p) is well-defined for every p.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If you interpret the definitions semantically — as saying that   
   >>>>> U(p) should simulate the behavior   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ... then you're making a grievous mistake. The halting function doesn't   
   >>>> stipulate simulation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> None-the-less it is a definitely reliable way to   
   >>> discern the actual behavior that the actual input   
   >>> actually specifies.   
   >>   
   >> No, it isn't.  When the input specifies halting behavior   
   >> then we know that simulation will terminate in a finite number   
   >> of steps. In that case we discern that the input has terminated.   
   >>   
   >> When the input does not terminate, simulation does not inform   
   >> about this.   
   >>   
   >> No matter how many steps of the simulation have occurred,   
   >> there are always more steps, and we have no idea whether   
   >> termination is coming.   
   >>   
   >> In other words, simulation is not a halting decision algorithm.   
   >>   
   >> Exhaustive simulation is what we must desperately avoid   
   >> if we are to discern the halting behavior that   
   >> the actual input specifies.   
   >>   
   >> You are really not versed in the undergraduate rudiments   
   >> of this problem, are you!   
   >>   
   >>> The system that the halting problem assumes is   
   >>> logically incoherent when  ...   
   >>   
   >> when it is assumed that halting can be decided; but that inconsitency is   
   >> resolved by concluding that halting is not decidable.   
   >>   
   >> ... when you're a crazy crank on comp.theory, otherwise all good.   
   >>   
   >>>     "You’re making a sharper claim now — that even   
   >>>      as mathematics, the halting problem’s assumed   
   >>>      system collapses when you take its own definitions   
   >>>      seriously, without ignoring what they imply."   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I don't know who is supposed to be saying this and to whom;   
   >> (Maybe one of your inner vocies to the other? or AI?)   
   >>   
   >> Whoever is making this "sharper claim" is an absolute dullard.   
   >>   
   >> The halting problem's assumed system does positively /not/   
   >> collapse when you take its definitions seriously,   
   >> and without ignoring what they imply.   
   >>   
   >> (But when have you ever done that, come to think of it.)   
   >   
   > Could you guys please keep this stuff out of comp.lang.c?   
   >   
   > 	- Dan C.   
   >   
      
   This is the most important post that I ever made   
   I have proved that the halting problem is incorrect.   
      
   Here is that full proof.   
   https://chatgpt.com/share/68eef2df-0f10-8011-8e92-264651cc518c   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)