XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 10:11 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 26/11/2025 à 05:06, olcott a écrit :   
   >> After you understand what the conventional view   
   >> really is we might make some progress on this.   
   >   
   > The Halting Problem is what it is. It makes perfect senses. You have no   
   > choice about it.   
   >   
   >> Ultimately I am proving that the halting problem   
   >> itself is incorrect.   
   >   
   > A sensible problem cannot be "incorrect".   
   >   
      
   What seems to be a sensible problem that has   
   incoherence that no one bothered to notice is   
   still incorrect because it is incoherent.   
      
   First you must understand this:   
   *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*   
      
   Then you can understand this:   
   The halting problem is flat out incorrect when it   
   requires a halt decider to report on anything   
   besides what its actual input actually specifies.   
      
      
   > You are "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)