XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/15/2025 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/15/25 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/15/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 15/12/2025 02:39, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/14/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/14/25 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/14/2025 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/14/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/14/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 13/12/2025 23:32, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> All of the textbooks require halt deciders to   
   >>>>>>>>>> report on the behavior of machine M on input w.   
   >>>>>>>>>> This may be easy to understand yet not precisely   
   >>>>>>>>>> accurate.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That is precisely accurate. The problem is exactly what the   
   >>>>>>>>> problem   
   >>>>>>>>> statement says. You may define your problem differently but then   
   >>>>>>>>> you just have another problem. The halting problem still is what   
   >>>>>>>>> it was.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> All the textbooks simply ignore that no Turing   
   >>>>>>>> machine can possibly compute the mapping from   
   >>>>>>>> the behavior from another actual Turing machine.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Sure it can, from the representation of it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Just like it can add two numbers by using representatins.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> They can only compute the mapping from a finite   
   >>>>>>>> string input that is a mere proxy for this behavior.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And the proxy represents that same behavior, so it must get the   
   >>>>>>> same result.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> As I have conclusively proved many thousands of   
   >>>>>> times that the behavior of DD AS AN ACTUAL INPUT   
   >>>>>> to HHH does SPECIFY non-halting behavior.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No you haven't,   
   >>>> I say that I have proven this   
   >>>> DD AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)   
   >>>   
   >>> You keep repeating that the meaning of DD as imput ot HHH is different   
   >>> from the meaning of DD per se. But you never say what that different   
   >>> meaning is.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Or I do say it 500 times and you never notice.   
   >> DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C   
   >> cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement   
   >> final halt state.   
   >   
   > Which is a lie, as HHH doesn't simulate the input by the semantic of C,   
   > as it doesn't correctly simulate the "HHH(DD)" instruction, as it thinks   
   > HHH is something differnt that what it must actually be.   
   >   
      
   So you you think that HHH thinks that the call   
   from DD to HHH(DD) is a bowl of spaghetti?   
      
   > Or, DD doesn't HAVE behavior by the C language, since HHH isn't part of   
   > the input.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> More importantly, you never tell what input to HHH would mean the   
   >>> same as DD per se so HHH is not a halt decider and is not relevant   
   >>> to any discossion about halt deciders.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)