XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/9/2025 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/8/25 11:33 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > So?   
   >   
   > Appeal to Authority is just a FALICY.   
   >   
   > The fact this is you full arguement just show the error in your logic.   
   >   
      
   He and Eric just understand these things better   
   than you and you lack of understanding is not   
   a rebuttal. I honestly believe that you are   
   capable of understanding these very difficult   
   things if you merely give up your insistence   
   on remaining in rebuttal mode.   
      
   It has take me more than 21 years to finally get   
   clear and correct words that are consistent with   
   standard definitions. For my first fifteen years   
   I only had strongly held intuitions and had to   
   overload terms of the art with different meanings   
   because there were no exiting terms that conveyed   
   the meanings that I needed to convey.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Sure it does.   
   >   
   > His decider check if the input uses it. That is based on the decider   
   > being able to detect that usage. Since there is no unique value to test,   
   > the test can't be done.   
   >   
      
   For the conventional halting problem proof there   
   is a unique value. That the proof can be adapted   
   is off-topic. We must make one point at a time   
   with no leaping to conclusions.   
      
   > Your logic is based on assuming you can make assumptions about things   
   > that are not true, and thus your logic is based on falsehoods being   
   > true, and thus shows it is just unsound, as are you.   
   >   
   > Sorry, all you are doing is showing how bad your logic abilities.   
      
   That I understand these things at deeper philosophical   
   levels is not any lack of understanding on my part. I   
   am merely having the same problem as Ludwig Wittgenstein   
   in that mathematicians and logicians are rigid-minded   
   and utterly unwilling to reexamine philosophical 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)