XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/10/2025 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.00:   
   >> On 12/8/2025 3:04 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 5.14:   
   >>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from   
   >>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject   
   >>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input   
   >>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic   
   >>>> property.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Within the verified truth of the above paragraph   
   >>>> *that took me three years to write* the halting   
   >>>> problem is proved to be incorrect in that it requires   
   >>>> that halting be computed from behavior other than   
   >>>> the actual behavior that the actual input actually   
   >>>> specifies as measured by a UTM based halt decider.   
   >>>   
   >>> The halting problem as usually posed asks for a method to determine   
   >>> about every computation whether it halts or runs forever. Some   
   >>> formulations specify further that the solution shall be expressed   
   >>> as a Turing machine that can be given a description of the computation.   
   >>   
   >> The mistake that I have fully elaborated many dozens   
   >> of times and so far everyone has ignored is that the   
   >> halting problem as specified requires a halt decider   
   >> to report on a behavior that differs from the behavior   
   >> that its actual finite string input actually specifies.   
   >   
   > When you start with a false claim you can infer nore false claims.   
   > But false claims are false no matter what you said about them.   
   >   
      
   *You cannot possibly find any mistake with this*   
   *You cannot possibly find any mistake with this*   
   *You cannot possibly find any mistake with this*   
      
   int DD()   
   {   
      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
      if (Halt_Status)   
        HERE: goto HERE;   
      return Halt_Status;   
   }   
      
   After many very extensive discussions with LLM   
   systems there are two principles that prove that   
   I have correctly refuted the halting problem itself.   
      
   (1) Turing Machine based Computable functions   
   only transform input finite strings into some value   
   on the basis of a semantric of syntatic property   
   that this finite string specifies.   
      
   (2) the behavior that an input DD specifies to halt   
   decider HHH is the sequence of steps of DD   
   simulated by HHH according to the semantics of   
   the C programming language.   
      
   Computable functions are the basic objects of study   
   in computability theory. Informally, a function is   
   computable if there is an algorithm that computes   
   the value of the function for every value of its argument.   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function   
      
   DD() executed from main() calls HHH(DD) thus is   
   not one-and-the-same-thing as an argument to HHH.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)