XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/8/25 11:00 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/8/2025 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>   
   >> *You have support for this in high places*   
   >>   
   >> The Halting Paradox   
   >> Bill Stoddart   
   >>   
   >> 6 Conclusions   
   >> The idea of a universal halting test seems reasonable,   
   >> but cannot be formalised as a consistent specification.   
   >> It has no model and does not exist as a conceptual object.   
   >> Assuming its conceptual existence leads to a paradox.   
   >>   
   >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05340   
   >>   
   >   
   > Which doesn't prove anything, as there IS a consistant specification for   
   > the test.   
   >   
   > The problem is you (and Bill) just don't understand it.   
   >   
      
   He and Eric have been PhD computer science professors   
   for decades. Of course that by itself means that   
   they must be woefully less than your own infallibility.   
      
   > Part of the problem is Bill doesn't understand the nature of Turing   
   > Complete systems. In particular, he assume there is a UNIQUE encoding   
   > for every program, which is a false assumption in Turing Complete systems.   
      
   That has nothing to do with foundations.   
      
   --   
   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)