[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>> BB(n), is that what you mean by "a limit L"?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> if you believe the halting problem, then BB must have a limit L,   
   >>>>>>>> or else halting becomes generally solvable using the BB   
   >>>>>>>> function. see, if you can compute the BB number for any N-state   
   >>>>>>>> machines, then for any N-state machine u can just run the N-   
   >>>>>>>> state machine until BB number of steps. any machine that halts   
   >>>>>>>> on or before BB(N) steps halts, any that run past must be   
   >>>>>>>> nonhalting   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No, if we could establish an upper limit for BB(n) for all n,   
   >>>>>>> then we could solve the hatling problem, as we have an upper   
   >>>>>>> limit for the number of steps we need to simulate the machine.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> BB(n) has a value, but for sufficiently large values of n, we   
   >>>>>>> don't have an upper bound for BB(n).   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> and the problem with allowing for partial decidability is that   
   >>>>>>>> BB can run continually run more and more deciders in parallel,   
   >>>>>>>> on every N- state machine, until one comes back with an halting   
   >>>>>>>> answer, for every N-state machine, which then it can the use to   
   >>>>>>>> decide what the BB number is for any N ...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So, what BB are you running? Or are you misusing "running" to try   
   >>>>>>> to mean somehow trying to calculate?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> contradicting the concept it must have a limit L, where some L-   
   >>>>>>>> state machine cannot be decidable by *any* partial decider on   
   >>>>>>>> the matter,   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No, it can have a limit, just not a KNOWN limit.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> consensus is there can a known limit L to the BB function, and   
   >>>>>> proofs have been put out in regards to this   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> so no richard, partial decidability does not work if BB is to   
   >>>>>>>> have a limit   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You only have the problem is BB has a KNOWN limit. Again, you   
   >>>>>>> trip up on assuming you can know any answer you want.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That some things are not knowable breaks your logic.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I just glanced at your paper and skipped to the conclusion.   
   >>>>> Why do we care about the undecidability of the halting problem?   
   >>>>> Because undecidability in general (if it is correct) shows   
   >>>>> that truth itself is broken. Truth itself cannot be broken.   
   >>>>> This is the only reason why I have worked on these things   
   >>>>> for 28 years.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> because it makes us suck as developing and maintaining software, and   
   >>>> as a 35 year old burnt out SWE, i'm tired of living in a world   
   >>>> running off sucky software. it really is limiting our potential, and   
   >>>> i want my soon to be born son to have a far better experience with   
   >>>> this shit than i did.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> a consequence of accepting the halting problem is then necessarily   
   >>>> accepting proof against *all* semantic deciders, barring us from   
   >>>> agreeing on what such general deciders might be   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Exactly: Tarski even "proved" that we can't even directly   
   >>> compute what is true. This lets dangerous liars get away   
   >>> with their dangerous lies.   
   >>>   
   >>>> this has lead to not only an unnecessary explosion in complexity of   
   >>>> software engineering, because we can't generally compute semantic   
   >>>> (turing) equivalence,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> but the general trend in deploying software that doesn't have   
   >>>> computed semantic proofs guaranteeing they actually do what we want   
   >>>> them to do.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes without computing halting total proof of   
   >>> correctness is impossible.   
   >>>   
   >>>> "testing" is poor substitute for doing so, but that's the most we   
   >>>> can agree upon due to the current theory of computing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> i think my ideas might contribute to dealing with incompleteness in   
   >>>> fundamental math more generally ... like producing more refined   
   >>>> limits to it's philosophical impact. tho idk if it can be gotten rid   
   >>>> of completely, anymore than we can get rid of the words "this   
   >>>> statement is false"   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't think that there actually are any limits   
   >>> except for expressions requiring infinite proofs.   
   >>>   
   >>>> but i am currently focused on the theory of computing and not   
   >>>> anything more generally. the fundamental objects comprising the   
   >>>> theory of computing (machines) are far more constrained in their   
   >>>> definitions than what set theory needs to encompass, and within   
   >>>> those constraints i think i can twist the consensus into some   
   >>>> contradiction that are just entirely ignorant of atm   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I have explored all of the key areas. None of them   
   >>> can be made as 100% perfectly concrete and unequivocal   
   >>> as computing.   
   >>>   
   >>>> that's the slam dunk left that i need. i have a means to rectify   
   >>>> whatever contradiction we find thru the use of RTMs, but i'm still   
   >>>> teasing out the contradiction that will *force* others to notice   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I do have my refutation of the halting problem itself   
   >>> boiled down to a rough draft of two first principles.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> polcott, i'm working on making the halting problem complete and   
   >> consistent in regards to a subset of the improved "reflective turing   
   >> machines" that encompasses all useful computations   
   >>   
   >> i'm sorry, but not about trying to reaffirm the halting function as   
   >> still uncomputable by calling it a category error   
   >>   
   >   
   > I do compute the halting function correctly.   
      
   the halting *function* is an abstract mathematical object that maps a   
   machine description to whether the machine described halts or not, not   
   the associated machine description that attempts to compute this   
      
   > I have been doing this for more than three years.   
   > We probably should not be spamming alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
      
   i hang out there tho, i have my own reasons for posting this there   
      
   >   
   > int sum(int x, int y){return x + y;}   
   > sum(3,2) should return 5 and it is incorrect   
   > to require sum(3,2) to return the sum of 5+6.   
   >   
      
   u can argue about what computing machines actually exist all u want, and   
   whether anything actually computes the halting *function*, i'm not going   
   to argue over what the halting *function* itself is   
      
   --   
   hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)