[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>> if L doesn't exist, that would make halting generally decidable,   
   >>>>>>>> so therefore L must exist   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> if L does exist, then there must be some L-state machine U which   
   >>>>>>>> cannot be decided on *by any partial* decider, because the BB   
   >>>>>>>> computation would find it and use it   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> We can sometimes establish upper and lower bounds on the value   
   >>>>>>>>> of 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   
   >>   
   >   
   > All Turing machines only compute the mapping   
   > from input finite strings to some value.   
   > On this basis I do compute halting correctly.   
   >   
   >>> 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   
   >>   
   >   
   > Theory of computation issues are disrespectful   
   > spam to that group that violate Buddhist compassion.   
   >   
   > I was a long time poster to alt.zen. I still   
   > have 8969 messages posted there since 2005.   
   >   
   > Also my great grand uncle Henry Steel Olcott   
   > was a very famous Buddhist.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)