XPost: comp.theory, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/6/2025 10:41 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 12/6/25 4:16 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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_Problem_Proof_Counter-   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)