XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 9:53 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 26/11/2025 à 04:50, olcott a écrit :   
   >> On 11/25/2025 9:36 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 04:33, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>> On 11/25/2025 9:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:46 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:45, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague   
   >>>>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math   
   >>>>>>>>>> phobia.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea that   
   >>>>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future   
   >>>>>>>>> states.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Because you have proven to be a despicable lying bass turd   
   >>>>>>>> I will no longer discuss the halting problem with you.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Peter, declaring victory by calling people names is not a   
   >>>>>>> mathematical   
   >>>>>>> argument.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> He agreed with me right here and tried to get away   
   >>>>>> with lying about it ever since.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Every time you've brought that up, I've reaffirmed my   
   >>>>> agreement in those points. That's what you call "lying".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When you agree with both mutually exclusive statements   
   >>>> that is lying.   
   >>>   
   >>> Like that deciding that a non terminating program is terminating :-) ?   
   >>>   
   >>> HELL for YOU!!!   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You have to take my words with 100% perfect   
   >   
   > I did.   
   >   
   >> precision with no paraphrasing allowed because   
   >> that ALWAYS results in the strawman error.   
   >>   
   >> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*   
   >> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*   
   >> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*   
   >> *The input to HHH(DD) DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*   
   >>   
   >> The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it   
   >> requires a halt decider to report on anything   
   >> besides what its actual input actually specifies.   
   >   
   > Peter, the halting problem does not ask H to guess anything beyond its   
   > input.   
      
   Spend 20,000 hours on it and see if you still think   
   this is true.   
      
   > The input D really does specify non-halting behavior — that’s why the   
   > diagonal argument works.   
   >   
      
   *No that is not at all the conventional view*   
      
   The conventional view is that both halting and   
   non-halting are impossible to decide because   
   the "input" does the opposite of whatever the   
   decider decides.   
      
   > If you forbid programs that refer to H, you are not refuting the halting   
   > problem;   
   > you are removing the very inputs the theorem uses.   
      
   After you understand what the conventional view   
   really is we might make some progress on this.   
      
   Ultimately I am proving that the halting problem   
   itself is incorrect.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)