XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/15/2025 1:06 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 15/12/2025 à 19:58, olcott a écrit :   
   >> On 12/15/2025 11:18 AM, Python wrote:   
   >>> Le 15/12/2025 à 17:34, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Trivial, void statement.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Superficially it may seem that way.   
   >> *halt status specified by an input finite string*   
   >> is the very subtle key difference that changes everything.   
   >   
   > It is in no way subtle. It is a smoke screen on your part.   
   >   
   > This very finite string is the complete description of the Turing   
   > machine and its input at stake.   
   >   
      
   When measuring the actual behavior that a finite   
   string input P specifies to halt decider H the   
   only correct measure is P simulated by H.   
      
   This has been simply glossed over for 90 years   
   because the halting problem was never defined   
   with the key nuance that the finite string inputs   
   are mere proxies for the behavior of directly   
   executed machines.   
      
   They only report on the behavior that is directly   
   encoded in this finite string according to the   
   semantics of the model of computation.   
      
   >>>> To say that a TM halt decider determines whether or   
   >>>> not machine M halts on input w is less than precisely   
   >>>> accurate.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is the definition of an halt decider.   
   >   
   > No answer?   
   >   
   > You will burn in Hell for Eternity, disgusting liar.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)