XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/18/2025 2:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/18/2025 7:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>> dart200  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>>> The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics,   
   >>>>> and only secondarily about computer science.   
   >   
   >>>> the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing   
   >>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around   
   >   
   >>> Alan Turing was a mathematician, possibly the finest of the 20th   
   >>> century.  Turing machines are a mathematical construction, based on the   
   >>> maths of the time.   
   >   
   >> He invented computer science and when he did that   
   >> he became the first computer scientist. That his   
   >> ideas were anchoring in a the brand new formalism   
   >> of Turing machines broke his work away from math.   
   >   
   > It did not.  His 1936 paper was a mathematics paper.   
   >   
      
   He cold not call himself a computer scientist at   
   the time because his work was the creation of   
   computer science. For many years all work on   
   computer science was done in the applied mathematics   
   department.   
      
   >>>> it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as   
   >>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically   
   >>>> undertake the operations, not set theory   
   >   
   >>> The fact that one can build a mechanical implementation of a turing   
   >>> machine is incidental.  They are 100% mathematical abstractions,   
   >>> defined, used, and reasoned about as such.   
   >   
   >> The fact that one can build Turing computable functions   
   >> in C abstracts tons of details that have nothing to do   
   >> with the essence of computation.   
   >   
   > No, you've got that the wrong way round.  The C language burdens   
   > computation theory with all sorts of unnecessary details (unnecessary   
   > for computation theory, that is).   
   >   
      
   Simply moving an object in memory from one location   
   to another is far too burdensome. The RASP machine   
   maps pretty well to x86 which in turn maps pretty   
   well to C.   
      
   >> Relationships that were buried in detail can now be finally seen   
   >> clearly.   
   >   
   > C burdens theory with obfuscation.  Turing machines are lacking such   
   > inessentials, yet are capable enough to perform any computation.   
   >   
   >>>> that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with   
   >>>> full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made   
   >>>> resilient to semantic paradoxes   
   >   
   >>> That reflection won't add anything to the power of a turing machine;   
   >>> there will be nothing your machines can do which a pure TM couldn't.  It   
   >>> is widely believed (though not, as far as I am aware proven) that there   
   >>> are no machines more powerful than turing machines.   
   >   
   >> His reflection seems to enable a machine to see its context.   
   >   
   > But the resulting machine won't be able to do anything a suitable turing   
   > machine couldn't.   
   >   
      
   It would point out a new way of looking at things that   
   has never been sufficiently evaluated before.   
      
   > [ .... ]   
   >   
   >>> The "halting problem" (the Halting Theorem) is resolved, and has been   
   >>> for many decades.   
   >   
   >> Within a certain set of incorrect assumptions it is fully resolved.   
   >   
   > You keep saying this, but you've never identified such an incorrect   
   > assumption.  It's not even clear what you mean by "incorrect   
   > assumptions".   
   >   
      
   I have repeatedly done this yet you are so sure   
   that I must be wrong that you cannot pay enough   
   attention.   
      
   The reason that I have to repeat some of these   
   things over and over with progressive refinements   
   is that everyone is so sure that I must be wrong   
   that that only glance at some of my words as   
   their entire basis to contrive a baseless rebuttal.   
      
   typedef int (*ptr)();   
   int HHH(ptr P);   
   int HHH1(ptr P);   
      
   int DD()   
   {   
      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
      if (Halt_Status)   
        HERE: goto HERE;   
      return Halt_Status;   
   }   
      
   int main()   
   {   
      HHH(DD);   
   }   
      
   HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
      
   HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) that   
   returns to DD that returns to HHH1.   
      
   The behavior of DD simulated by HHH1 is the   
   same as the behavior of DD() executed from main.   
      
   The sound basis of this reasoning is the   
   semantics of the C programming language.   
      
   (a) Halt deciders are required to report on the   
   actual behavior that their actual input actually   
   specifies.   
      
   (b) The halting problem requires Halt deciders to   
   report on other than the actual behavior that their   
   actual input actually specifies making the halting   
   problem incorrect.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)