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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   With the text of each program P we associate a   
   unique number ⌈P⌉, known as the program’s encoding,   
   which will stand for the program when we want to   
   use that program as data, e.g. when passing one   
   program to another as an argument.   
      
   You are just terribly inaccurate in paraphrasing.   
   Perhaps speaking to no one at all is better than   
   talking to you.   
      
   --   
   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)