XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/18/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 17/12/2025 16:06, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/17/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 15/12/2025 16:05, 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> You are right, i have never noticed a pointer to any of those 500.   
   >>>   
   >>>> DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C   
   >>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement   
   >>>> final halt state.   
   >>>   
   >>> And you still don't say.   
   >>   
   >> (a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values   
   >> using finite string transformation rules.   
   >>   
   >> (b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure   
   >> of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within   
   >> finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H.   
   >   
   > Nothing new there.   
   >   
      
   Therefore H(P)==0 is correct.   
      
   int P()   
   {   
      int Halt_Status = H(P);   
      if (Halt_Status)   
        HERE: goto HERE;   
      return Halt_Status;   
   }   
      
   int main()   
   {   
      H(P);   
      return 0;   
   }   
      
      
      
   --   
   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)