XPost: comp.theory, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/6/2025 1:34 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 12/5/25 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 12/4/25 3:22 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>> keep in mind: all real TMs exist, undecidable machines do not exist.   
   >>   
   >> But "Undecidability" isn't about a particular "machine", but about a   
   >> general problem, a total MAPPING of the (infinite) set of inputs to   
   >> there respective output. It is the statement that there can not exist   
   >> a "Program" (as defined by the theory, which are finite definite   
   >> algorithms) that can recreate the mapping.   
   >>   
   >> For halting, every given program is know to either halt or not, the   
   >> problem is to be able to universally give that answer correctly in   
   >> finite time. THAT can't be done (universally, i.e. for any possible   
   >> input machine).   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> see, if we do not have a general halting decider then there must be   
   >>> some input machine L, which is the first machine in the full   
   >>> enumeration who's halting semantics cannot be decided up for some   
   >>> kind of semantics (like halting).   
   >>   
   >> No, it means that for every machine in that enumeration, there is a   
   >> machine that it will give a wrong answer to (or fail to answer), and   
   >   
   > let me boil this down:   
   >   
   > all "proven" examples of what are actually hypothetical machines that   
   > could not be decided upon, not only do not exist, they actually could   
   > not exist... and therefore they *do not* and *will not* come up in a   
   > full enumeration of machines   
   >   
   > so what is the *real* example of a machine that demonstrably cannot be   
   > decided upon???   
   >   
   > if you tell me: look at these hypothetical undecidable machine that   
   > cannot exist, but from that we can just extrapolate *real* forms of such   
   > machines that certainly can exist ... ???   
   >   
   > but like ok, if ur so certain they *must* exist, what is an example of   
   > one???   
   >   
   > i'm not buying this whole if hypotheticals can be presented, then   
   > certainly *real* variations of it exist ... where else would   
   > hypothesizing about something just like fucking imply non-hypothetical   
   > forms of it actually exist as real constructs???   
   >   
   >> what that input machine is, can very well differ depending on which   
   >> machine in the enumeration you are looking at.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> well, first off: all the proofs for undecidability use purely   
   >>> hypothetical machines, which then are declared to not exist, so none   
   >>> of those machines could be *real* machine L.   
   >>   
   >> Not "ALL", but the classic one. and the input derived WOULD BE a real   
   >> machine if the decider it was built on was an actual machine.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> so what is this proposed non-hypothetical *real* machine L that then   
   >>> cannot be decided?   
   >>   
   >> But that isn't the claim. It isn't that there is a specific machine L   
   >> that can't be decided, and in fact, there can't be such a machine, as   
   >> there are two poor deciders, we can all Yes, and No, that always   
   >> answer for every input their given answer, ONE of those MUST be right,   
   >> so there can not be a single specific machine that all get wrong.   
   >>   
   >> That idea is just part of Peter Olcotts stupidity and misunderstanding.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> and could that machine L even exist?   
   >>>   
   >>> let's say someone found that limit L and demonstrated this property   
   >>> that it cannot be decided upon by a halting decider ... but then next   
   >>> step in undecidable proofs is to declare the machine's non-existence,   
   >>> because an undecidable machine is also not a deterministic machine,   
   >>> which ultimately contradicts the fact that this limit machine L was   
   >>> suppose to actually *exist*, so how could it ever exist?   
   >>>   
   >>> and if the limit machine L does not actually exist, then how are TM   
   >>> semantics not generally decidable???   
   >>>   
   >>> good god guys, it's so tiring arguing against what is seemingly   
   >>> irreconcilable nonsense. but bring it on my dudes, how do u think i'm   
   >>> wrong this time???   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> And your problem he is you are working on the wrong problem, because   
   >> "someone" has spewed out so much misinformaiton that he has reduced   
   >> the intelligence of the world.   
   >   
   > no bro, please read this carefully: these really are my own thots that   
   > i've mostly developed on my own without much external validation   
   > anywhere. polcott is an interesting character, but we haven't yet seen   
   > eye to eye enough for much influence to happen either way   
   >   
   > unlike polcott, i'm personally not sure what to do about godel's   
   > incompleteness, and i'm not making claims about it because it's just   
   > outside the scope i'm trying to address   
   >   
   > i'm trying to address the theory of computing, not math as a whole   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The problem isn't that some given machine can't be decided if it halts   
   >> or not, but that for every machine that claims to be a decider, there   
   >> will be an input for which it gives the wrong answer, or it fails to   
   >> answers.   
   >   
   > i know this is hard to really consider:   
   >   
   > what is an example of a *real machine that exists*, where this behavior   
   > demonstrably happens???   
   >   
   > sure you can throw around hypothetical examples of undecidable machines   
   > all day long, i've spent a lot of time considering them myself, probably   
   > more than you actually...   
   >   
   > but like what about a *real* machine, that *actually exists*???   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Now, a side effect of this fact, it becomes true that there exists   
   >> some machine/input combinations that we can not know if they halt or   
   >> not, but another side effect of this is we can't tell if a given   
   >> machine is one of them, as by definition any machine we can't know if   
   >> it halts or not, must be non-halting, as any halting machine can be   
   >> proven to halt, just by running it for enough steps.   
   >   
   > honestly richard, i think i just stumbled right into a core   
   > contradiction baked into the theory of computing that has gone almost   
   > entirely unnoticed besides a few "cranks" on the internet,   
   >   
   > none of which have put it so succinctly like i've done so in the last day   
   >   
      
   It looks like I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem   
   and Gödel's Incompleteness. They are both in the same paper.   
      
   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398375553_Halting_Probl   
   m_Proof_Counter-Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox   
      
   --   
   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)