XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/15/2025 10:20 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   > On 15/12/2025 10:08, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 15/12/2025 11:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >>> Halt deciders are ten a penny.   
   >>>   
   >>> This one, for example, works 99% of the time, +/-:   
   >>>   
   >>> int halts(char *prgfilename, void *input)   
   >>> {   
   >>>    return 1;   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> If you meant to claim that there are no *universal* halt deciders,   
   >>> then of course I agree.   
   >>   
   >> The usual meaning of "halt decider" and "halting decider" is that   
   >> it answers correctly every time.   
   >   
   > Okay, but in a group where a persistent crank is constantly trying to   
   > blur the meaning of "halt decider", being excessively precise may be no   
   > bad thing.   
   >   
      
      
   A TM halt decider computes the halt status specified   
   by an input finite string on its tape. It begins in its   
   own start state and ends in one of its its own final   
   halt states.   
      
   To say that a TM halt decider determines whether or   
   not machine M halts on input w is less than precisely   
   accurate.   
      
   --   
   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)