XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 11/29/25 1:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 11/29/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 11/29/2025 2:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/28/2025 11:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> I have shown that the original assumptions are   
   >>>>>> incoherent just like   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You have not. Only that your understanding is incoherent.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The halting problem instance is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, it isn't.   
   >>>   
   >>> You're not even smart enough to keep straight in your head   
   >>> what is part of the /problem/ and what is a /result/   
   >>> of investigating the problem.   
   >>>   
   >>> The Halting Problem is literally a sentence of the form: "can   
   >>> a Turing machine calculate whether any Turing Machine halts".   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> When the halting problem instance defines and input   
   >> that does the opposite of whatever its decider reports   
   >> this is structurally the same as the set of sentences   
   >> that are true only when they are false and false only   
   >> when they are true.   
   >   
   > nope.   
   >   
   > The Liar's paradox depend on an explict use of self-reference.   
   >   
   > The Halting Problem's proof is built on the fact that the system is   
   > powerful enough to describe the effect of such a reference without   
   > actually needing to use a reference.   
      
   bruh making the self-reference one step more indirect does make the   
   self-reference go away, i don't know why people keep repeating that, but   
   it's not true   
      
   you form the self-reference directly, or u search the whole space of   
   machines for a self-reference (which is inherently possible with how TMs   
   are defined) ... either way is forming a self-reference that results in   
   an inability to classify the machine into some set defined by a   
   particular semantic property.   
      
   >   
   > In essence, this sort of comes from the ability to use a finite   
   > description to create infinite/unbounded behavior.   
      
      
   --   
   a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
      
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
      
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)