XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/11/2025 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/11/25 8:47 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/11/2025 6:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/10/25 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/10/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/10/25 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/10/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/10/25 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> *It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> When the halting problem requires a halt decider   
   >>>>>>>> to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this   
   >>>>>>>> is always a category error.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The corrected halting problem requires a Turing   
   >>>>>>>> machine decider to report in the behavior that   
   >>>>>>>> its finite string input specifies.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And since the input specifies the behavior of the Turing Machine   
   >>>>>>> it represents when run,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Counter-factual, but then you have only ever been   
   >>>>>> a somewhat smart bot stuck in rebuttal mode.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> WHy do you say that?   
   >>>>> What grounds do you have for that claim?   
   >>>>> Do you even know what you are saying?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That is the behavior pattern that you have been   
   >>>> consistently showing with every post for years.   
   >>>   
   >>> You mean asking you to actual prove your claims?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I always prove my claims you always dismiss them   
   >> with dogma and rhetoric utterly bereft of any of   
   >> any supporting reasoning like you just did.   
   >   
   > No, you argue for them based on unsupported claims.   
   >   
   > TO PROVE something, you need to refer to the accepted AXIOM,   
   > DEFINITIONS, and proven theorms in the system.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is proving you don't know what you are talking about   
   > and don't care how much reckless stupidity you show.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> int DD()   
   >> {   
   >>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>    return Halt_Status;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> It is a verified fact that N steps of DD simulated   
   >> by HHH according to the semantics of the C programming   
   >> do prove a behavior pattern that cannot possibly reach   
   >> the "return" statement final halt state of DD in any   
   >> number of steps.   
   >>   
   >   
   > No  it doesn't. As your described code is not a "Program", AS IT IS   
   > MISSING THE NEEDD CODE OF HHH.   
   >   
      
   That HHH simulates DD according to the semantics of   
   C is fully enough specification. We could simply   
   imagine that HHH is a C emulator that can invoke   
   an instance of itself recursively.   
      
   *Very simple first principles showing the halting problem error*   
   *Very simple first principles showing the halting problem error*   
   *Very simple first principles showing the halting problem error*   
      
   When the halting problem requires a halt decider   
   to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this   
   is always a category error because Turing machines   
   only take finite string inputs.   
      
   The corrected halting problem requires a Turing   
   machine decider to report in the behavior that its   
   actual finite string input actually specifies.   
      
   --   
   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)