XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/11/2025 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/11/25 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > But it CAN'T for the input given,   
   If the above is the only thing in DD.c and   
   HHH is an executable that   
      
   (a) Interprets DD.c   
   (b) Recognizes the call to itself and invokes   
   another instance of itself with the function   
   body of DD as char* input...   
      
   The execution trace of that alone proves that   
   the input to HHH(DD) does not halt.   
      
      
   --   
   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)