XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17:   
   >> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense.   
   >>>   
   >>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser focused on your   
   >>> own psychotic nonsense.   
   >>>   
   >>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject   
   >>>> is closed.   
   >>>   
   >>> Whaaat ...   
   >>>   
   >>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com   
   >>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H   
   >>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated   
   >>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,   
   >>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement.   
   >>>   
   >>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is.   
   >>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns,   
   >>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating.   
   >>>   
   >>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this;   
   >>> it is completely uncontroversial.   
   >>   
   >> I really did figure out how to determine the   
   >> correct halt status that the halting problem's   
   >> counter-example input specifies to it decider.   
   >   
   > The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing machine   
   > specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to the   
   > decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the halting   
   > problem.   
   >   
      
   That is inaccurate. The halting problem is about   
   behaviors that finite string machine description   
   inputs specify.   
      
   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.   
      
      
   --   
   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)