XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   XPost: comp.lang.prolog, comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/5/2026 12:06 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 2/4/26 7:04 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 2/4/2026 8:52 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>> On 2/4/26 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/4/2026 8:42 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2/4/26 4:00 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2/4/2026 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2/4/26 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2/4/2026 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 2/4/26 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2026 2:41 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/26 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2026 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/26 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source code of fully operational system   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH simulates DD step-by-step according to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the C programming language.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> IT CAN'T, as you have been told, as your above program,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> without the C CODE for HHH, has undefined behavior by the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> HHH as executed by polcott is exhibiting a classifier   
   >>>>>>>>>>> interface i'm calling a *partial recognizer*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> (machine) -> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>    TRUE iff machine HALTS and DECIDABLE,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>    FALSE iff machine LOOPS or UNDECIDABLE,   
   >>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't do so quite so intelligently, but HHH(DD) needs to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> return FALSE because DD is an UNDECIDABLE input to HHH   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> polcott does this by detecting the infinite recursion and   
   >>>>>>>>>>> returning FALSE because of that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> this approach of returning FALSE upon encountering an   
   >>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion on self (which i believe all paradoxes   
   >>>>>>>>>>> will involve) will either be accurate or inaccurate in   
   >>>>>>>>>>> regards to actually halting/ not... but it doesn't matter   
   >>>>>>>>>>> because returning FALSE for halting yet UNDECIDABLE input is   
   >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable for a *partial recognizer*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> where this wouldn't work is:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> int ND()   
   >>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(ND);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>      return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> HHH(ND) -> FALSE because HHH(ND) will recognize the infinite   
   >>>>>>>>>>> recursion and return FALSE ... but that's not an acceptable   
   >>>>>>>>>>> response for a *partial recognizer* for ND because ND is not   
   >>>>>>>>>>> an UNDECIDABLE input, and it clearly should HALT   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> sorry polcott   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> That is merely a text message that has not been updated.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> See my other post:   
   >>>>>>>>>> When halt provers are allowed to reject bad   
   >>>>>>>>>> inputs the remaining domain is decidable   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> A bad input is any input that does not have   
   >>>>>>>>>> *a well-founded justification tree within Proof*   
   >>>>>>>>>> *theoretic semantics*   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> For a simulating halt prover as soon as it detects   
   >>>>>>>>>> that its simulated input cannot possibly reach its   
   >>>>>>>>>> own simulated final halt state for any reason   
   >>>>>>>>>> what-so-ever then this input  a bad input.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> so ur just banning self-referential analysis?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> When we reject inputs not having   
   >>>>>>>> *a well-founded justification tree within Proof*   
   >>>>>>>> *theoretic semantics*   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Then undecidability utterly ceases to exist.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> i agree it's impossible to demonstrated undecidability without   
   >>>>>>> self- reference,   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> and filtering out paradoxes is a path to turing complete and   
   >>>>>>> fully decidable subset of turing machines,   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> but ND is a halting function, and i don't see a particular reason   
   >>>>>>> why a more intelligent HHH couldn't return that given a more in-   
   >>>>>>> depth analysis of how the self-reference interplays with the rest   
   >>>>>>> of the machine   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It cannot do that because that is not what it sees.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> once it sees the infinite recursion on itself ...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> why can't it do analysis on the effects of various possible return   
   >>>>> values for itself ... like what we do when we talk thru it?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The job of a simulating halt prover is to determine   
   >>>> whether or not it must abort its simulation to prevent   
   >>>> its own non-termination. If for-any-reason the answer   
   >>>> is yes then it is always correct to abort and reject   
   >>>> this input.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> it's still a partial recognizer, just with worse power than perhaps a   
   >>> more optimal one that can do more than just abort it's simulation,   
   >>> but upon doing so recognize the self-reference and perform more in-   
   >>> depth analysis beyond pure simulation.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Like I tell the LLM systems it is a partial halt prover   
   >   
   > i simple see that a more powerful partial halting recognizer can return   
   > TRUE to the input ND just fine,   
   >   
      
   When an input does the opposite of whatever value   
   its halt decider returns the only correct choice   
   is to reject this input.   
      
   Thanks to LLM systems I now finally have the proper   
   conventional terms-of-the-art to say this, we correctly   
   reject any input not having:   
      
   *a well-founded justification tree within Proof*   
   *theoretic semantics*   
      
   I may have said that same thing not using conventional   
   terms-of-the-art as much as 22 years ago. I only had   
   the actual algorithm to do that about six years ago.   
      
   > because i can map out the essential steps on paper...   
   >   
   > furthermore, how do u know ur not losing computational power when   
   > removing all self-referential analysis?   
   >   
   >> in the same sense that a truth predicate that fails to   
   >> correctly determine if this sentence is true or false:   
   >>   
   >> "What time is it?"  Is a partial truth predicate.   
   >>   
   >> Then they get it. Once we reject bad data it is a   
   >> halt prover that always works.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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.

   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)